Base Maps from 550 BC to Modern Day, all in UCS! - Page 47

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · #**921** July 28th, 2010, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iori

Well, not every one, at the very beginning everyone was confused enough that I don't think they actually did.

Sure, but in confusion the USA surely still thought all the southern states were 'theirs'. The CSA was a group of rebelling states that the USA wanted to reabsorb. Wanting to reabsorb is basically the same thing as claiming anyway.

Iori · #**922** July 28th, 2010, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Sure, but in confusion the USA surely still thought all the southern states were 'theirs'. The CSA was a group of rebelling states that the USA wanted to reabsorb. Wanting to reabsorb is basically the same thing as claiming anyway.

True.

I'm not really sure how that would be shown though, atleast until the U.S. starts retaking noticable amounts of area.

Chris S · #**923** July 28th, 2010, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

Quote:

The CSA existed as a de facto seperate state and was'nt just a rebelion, hence its border.

That doesn't make any sense. The CSA may have had a constitution, but it was still just a rebellion. My comparison with the Taiping may have been off, but if we make separatist states that never existed as nations in their own right with borders and their own colors, then we have a lot of mistakes to change and our maps look all of a sudden, very very cluttered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

Well given this criteria:

I'd say that the English Civil War is remarkably similar given that both Royalists and Parliamentarians had functioning governments and chain of commands. The Indian Wars in the United States should also be represented since the tribes, usually represented by terra nullis, were much more "governmental" and "chain of command" based than the pre-United States era.

But if we followed this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion then the US should not be given it's own colour until 1783 since prior to that time the US was simply a rebellion.

The English Civil War may have been similar in conduct to the American Civil War, but the English Civil War was most similar to the Taiping Rebellion in terms of the aims of the opposing sides: establish absolute authority over the existing state. The Parliamentarians wished to have Parliamentary rule over all of England and the King wanted royal rule over all of England. The American Civil War was nothing like that. The Confederates wished to secede (and made declarations to that effect) but did not wish to take over the entirety of the USA and impose slavery on Maine (modern fictional mockumentaries by Kevin Wilmott notwithstanding). For the English Civil War to be comparable to the American Civil War we would need the Parliamentarians to have aimed to establish a "Commonwealth of England" to be separate from, and existing alongside the established "Kingdom of England".

It's not like groups wishing to establishing a different form of governance on the same state haven't been given separate colours either. The communists have their own colours for Russia (red) and China (a dark pink-purple). Doesn't mean the Taiping are unimportant, but there are only so many colours and the Taiping don't have the kind of effect on history that the communists had in China or Russia. Then there is also the fact that apart from the American Revolution (or "British Civil War" since that war is much more similar to the American Civil War than either the English Civil War or the Taiping Rebellion) we haven't had too many truly major wars of secession in history apart from the American Civil War. Unless one wants to count Biafra, Katanga and Algeria as being on the same scale of the American Civil War. The Indochinese war(s) might count but then Vietnam gets it's own colour in some derivations of the UCS, just like the CSA did in some variants and the USA does in all variants.

SilverPhantom2 · #**924** July 28th, 2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:

But if we followed this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion then the US should not be given it's own colour until 1783 since prior to that time the US was simply a rebellion.

Except we have the benefit of hindsight. If Ukraine, a breakaway republic of the USSR became a superpower by 2100, then the basemaps in 2100 are guaranteed to show Ukraine with its own color and influence in all maps dating back to the BC.

The USA gets its own color in 1776 because we, in 2010, know that the USA will eventually achieve independence, extend across the continent, and then extend influence in East Asia and Europe. The CSA does absolutely none of that.

Quote:

The English Civil War may have been similar in conduct to the American Civil War, but the English Civil War was most similar to the Taiping Rebellion in terms of the aims of the opposing sides: establish absolute authority over the existing state. The Parliamentarians wished to have Parliamentary rule over all of England and the King wanted royal rule over all of England. The American Civil War was nothing like that. The Confederates wished to secede (and made declarations to that effect) but did not wish to take over the entirety of the USA and impose slavery on Maine (modern fictional mockumentaries by Kevin Wilmott notwithstanding). For the English Civil War to be comparable to the American Civil War we would need the Parliamentarians to have aimed to establish a "Commonwealth of England" to be separate from, and existing alongside the established "Kingdom of England".

True. Except the CSA never does exist alongside the USA. All they do is fight like mad men to gain their independence. Which they never do. They bear a similarity to the Taiping Rebellion in that way. Though reasons for not giving the Taiping Rebellion its own color, I admit are valid, there is no better reason to give the CSA its own color as it is no more historically significant.

Quote:

It's not like groups wishing to establishing a different form of governance on the same state haven't been given separate colours either. The communists have their own colours for Russia (red) and China (a dark pink-purple). Doesn't mean the Taiping are unimportant, but there are only so many colours and the Taiping don't have the kind of effect on history that the communists had in China or Russia. Then there is also the fact that apart from the American Revolution (or "British Civil War" since that war is much more similar to the American Civil War than either the English Civil War or the Taiping Rebellion) we haven't had too many truly major wars of secession in history apart from the American Civil War. Unless one wants to count Biafra, Katanga and Algeria as being on the same scale of the American Civil War. The Indochinese war(s) might count but then Vietnam gets it's own colour in some derivations of the UCS, just like the CSA did in some variants and the USA does in all variants.

Though there is a large level of hypocrisy to this. Franco's Spain is never given its own color, nor is the aforementioned English Commonwealth, or the Islamic Revolution in Iran. All of which played just as large roles in shaping history as the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. Geographical area notwithstanding as it really (for that subject matter) stands only on the map... until you look at Spain/Britain/Iran.

Basically, every nation with it's own color and hard, black border has two things in common:

1. Achieved and recognized independence.
2. Expansion

Mexico may be the only nation with its own color and borders that does not expand that I can immediately think of. Every other country on the map is recognized internationally, achieves their own independence with a period of peace from their mother country, and later expands (in most cases territorially, in others economically).

Again, the CSA achieves none of that criteria and stands as the odd man out. Assigning a color to it implies a great injustice to other areas of the world.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · #**925** July 28th, 2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iori

True.

I'm not really sure how that would be shown though, atleast until the U.S. starts retaking noticable amounts of area.

Easily: The same way claims have always been shown via UCS. The CSA border would be traced with US-blue all the way around except for the actual CS-US border.

Chris S · #**926** July 28th, 2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

Except we have the benefit of hindsight. If Ukraine, a breakaway republic of the USSR became a superpower by 2100, then the basemaps in 2100 are guaranteed to show Ukraine with its own color and influence in all maps dating back to the BC.

The USA gets its own color in 1776 because we, in 2010, know that the USA will eventually achieve independence, extend across the continent, and then extend influence in East Asia and Europe. The CSA does absolutely none of that.

Put it this way - how many timelines do you see where the Taiping establish a separate state that goes on to dominate Asia? Or where they take over China and then dominate Asia? Now think about how many TLs there are that simply involve the CSA winning the war, let alone those where the CSA becomes involved in minor expansion in Mexico and Cuba. This is an alternate history website, not just a history website. So obviously colour schemes will cater to entities or groups that are the most discussed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

True. Except the CSA never does exist alongside the USA. All they do is fight like mad men to gain their independence. Which they never do. They bear a similarity to the Taiping Rebellion in that way. Though reasons for not giving the Taiping Rebellion its own color, I admit are valid, there is no better reason to give the CSA its own color as it is no more historically significant.

I never said the CSA must have existed alongside the USA, nor did I say that a "Commonwealth of England" existed alongside the "Kingdom of England". I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

For the English Civil War to be comparable to the American Civil War we would need the Parliamentarians to have aimed to establish a "Commonwealth of England" to be separate from, and existing alongside the established "Kingdom of England".

What a group aims to do and what actually happened doesn't have to be the same. Just as how the Taiping rebellion aimed to overthrow the ruling dynasty in China and establish an alternate government. That didn't happen but it doesn't prevent us from showing them on a map even though they never did overthrow the government.

In any case it is also debatable that the CSA never existed alongside the USA. The CSA was formed in February 1861 and the Civil War started in April 1861, so for at about 2 months they both exercised jurisdiction over more or less their respective areas and thus basically existed alongside each other (although the CSA remained unrecognized) and weren't fighting like mad and might not have done so for an even longer time if Fort Sumter hadn't been attacked.

Also this cannot be correct:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

All [the CSA] do is fight like mad men to gain their independence. Which they never do. They bear a similarity to the Taiping Rebellion in that way.

It was pointed out before that the Taiping rebellion was never about gaining independence, so the CSA can't be similar to the Taiping rebellion in that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

Though there is a large level of hypocrisy to this. Franco's Spain is never given its own color, nor is the aforementioned English Commonwealth, or the Islamic Revolution in Iran. All of which played just as large roles in shaping history as the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. Geographical area notwithstanding as it really (for that subject matter) stands only on the map... until you look at Spain/Britain/Iran.

Technically Franco's Spain for most of it's existence was a Kingdom with a vacant throne and so on the surface was a continuation (or restoration) of the Spanish state that existed before the Republican interlude in the 1930s. And the USSR was also technically Russia plus some other states which had become separated from the Russian Empire during the Revolution. It's also highly debatable that Iran's Islamic Revolution played "just as large" a role on shaping history as the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. It didn't lead to a Korea-like American/UN-Iranian war in Iraq that lasted years and cost thousands of lives and resulted in the USA being in a state of national emergency for nearly 3 decades (by accident), nor did it result in a Vietnam scenario with support being given to Islamic revolutionaries in some jungle state in Africa which in turn resulted in a war that wrecked American presidencies and affected American culture. It also didn't play a role in providing a bogeyman for radical groups elsewhere in the Middle East to gain or seize power and then end up launching the bloodiest conflict the world has ever seen. And it certainly isn't like Iran is technically able to export it's Revolution to all and sundry. China is never going to experience an Islamic Revolution along the lines of Iran simply because the majority of China's population is not Muslim. However, Russia (a mainly Orthodox Christian country), China (a mainly Buddhist/Confucianist country), Cuba (Catholic) and South Yemen (Muslim) all became established communist states. Germany (Protestant-Catholic) also experienced an abortive communist revolution and had a communist party. How many of those countries would have experienced even an abortive Islamic Revolution without mass conversion first? Also, the Chinese Civil War, unlike the various changes from monarchy to republic and sometimes back to monarchy in England, France, the Netherlands, Germany and China itself, resulted in two competing governments controlling different areas of the same state and doing so for over 50 years now. There isn't really a need to distinguish between the English Commonwealth and the Kingdom of England since one wasn't a separatist movement trying to break away from the other and neither resulted in any kind of frozen Civil War in which two contrasting styles of government exercised jurisdiction over separate parts of the same state.

Quote:

Basically, every nation with it's own color and hard, black border has two things in common:

1. Achieved and recognized independence.
2. Expansion

Mexico may be the only nation with its own color and borders that does not expand that I can immediately think of. Every other country on the map is recognized internationally, achieves their own independence with a period of peace from their mother country, and later expands (in most cases territorially, in others economically).

Again, the CSA achieves none of that criteria and stands as the odd man out. Assigning a color to it implies a great injustice to other areas of the world.

I guess you weren't around when the UCS was being drawn up and debated? Or you didn't see the threads at the time or later? Those 2 criteria you list were never a formal part of the idea behind the UCS especially the first criteria. The original, original UCS essentially showed the major colonial powers (since using colour would be advantageous for territories separated by ocean and other countries) as well as the major powers that most often crop up as the subjects of TLs and was intended for ease of recognition and continuity of said entities (so if what we know as "the Netherlands" ended up being called "Belgium" in a TL as happened in Ofaloaf's Apples and Oranges then a map of the world wouldn't have to be cluttered with a key and everyone would know that the orange bits on the map are what we know as "the Netherlands"). There was never any rule about powers/entities needing to be recognized (heck, the RSFSR and later USSR wasn't recognized until the 1920s and 1930s - 1924 by Britain (although there was de facto recognition of the RSFSR in 1921 but nothing de jure), France and Italy, 1925 by Japan, 1933 by the USA, etc). This was especially so since it was meant to show the de facto (and where possible the de jure) situation. Later other areas got added (Hungary was the subject of much debate) but of course colours began to run out. So really, you are reading way too much into the the CSA being given a colour on some UCS variants. It certainly isn't about other parts of the world requiring some kind of justice from a bunch of guys colouring maps on a computer.

If you really feel that strongly then why not just use your own colour scheme (as Susano always does) or just simply not colour in the CSA on your maps? Why force a large group to do that if they don't have a problem with the UCS variants they use and/or prefer?

SilverPhantom2 · #**927** July 28th, 2010, 06:41 PM

No, I was not present when UCS was being debated and fought over. Your comment is very insightful. But really, the CSA having a hardline border and the CSA having its own color are two different issues. Since the purpose of the maps are for AH users (I think it's safe to add "only") then the CSA having its own color serves its own purpose, ok. (Though I'd imagine if this site's majority was Chinese, Spanish, or Iranian things would be different)

However, the hardline border still doesn't make sense. The CSA was not recognized by ANY state during its entire existence. The four month stand off between the CSA's declaration of independence and the firing upon Fort Sumter would be equivalent to a Phoney War. Though since you and others feel strongly enough about this, I might as well not continue with the discussion.

However I do have to disagree with the comment on Iran. The Islamic Revolution is partly or entirely responsible for a regime change in the United States, a regime change in Iraq, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War following, which later led to Iraq firing Scud Missiles into Israel, the establishment of a vicious regime in Iran, and finally culminating in the current state of al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, Islamic Iran today, Bush's disastrous yet mildly successful Iraq War, and heightened tensions in the Middle East. Now, I don't have a body count for that, but I'm pretty sure it totals relative to the Taiping Rebellion (some 2 million). As for Iran leading a series of Islamic Revolutions, we'll have to wait and see. You named 10 or 12 non-Muslim countries who "would have to see mass conversion to suddenly experience Islamic revolution" but what about the 50 or so Muslim-majority states that do not have an established Islamist state? Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, the Emirates, Qatar, Egypt (debatable). 1979 was an extremely powerful year, and while this has become off-topic, I don't think saying Iran's Revolution was insignificant in the context of global history, is at all accurate.

Chris S · #**928** July 29th, 2010, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

No, I was not present when UCS was being debated and fought over. Your comment is very insightful. But really, the CSA having a hardline border and the CSA having its own color are two different issues. Since the purpose of the maps are for AH users (I think it's safe to add "only") then the CSA having its own color serves its own purpose, ok. (Though I'd imagine if this site's majority was Chinese, Spanish, or Iranian things would be different)

However, the hardline border still doesn't make sense. The CSA was not recognized by ANY state during its entire existence.

But remember that the UCS has very little, if anything, to do with recognition (which is mostly dealing with de jure situations) and more to do with "facts on the ground" or the de facto situation. No country recognized either the first East Turkestan republic (1933-1934) or the second one (1944-1949) but that country is depicted on most UCS maps with a solid/hardline black border. the Republic of Rhodesia was also not recognized by any state but that doesn't mean UCS maps have it coloured in completely as a British colony between 1965 and 1979. Independent Vermont was never recognized by the US (due to New York's claim) and didn't send or receive diplomats or gain recognition from any other country, yet it will be shown with a hardline border between 1777 and 1791 when people drawing the maps actually remember it's existence. The Yucatan republic is another case I believe of an area that was never recognized as independent by any country and when folks remember it's existence it is drawn with hardline borders.

Some places get dotted borders because of the vagueness of the situation (like the Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka or South Ossetia and Abkhazia before the recent war - in those situations the area of actual control is at great variance with what is claimed and given the scale of the maps in most cases it would be impossible to accurately show the de facto situation).

Quote:

The four month stand off between the CSA's declaration of independence and the firing upon Fort Sumter would be equivalent to a Phoney War. Though since you and others feel strongly enough about this, I might as well not continue with the discussion.

Well it's a free board. Everyone pretty much uses the UCS variants they prefer. Some like to have a multitude of colours (resulting in many shades of blues, greens, yellows and pinks/purples...sometimes so many that countries start to blend and it becomes difficult to tell the difference between say French Guiana and a protectorate or territory or occupied territory of Brazil). Some like to just use the basic colours (i.e. for the US, European countries, Ottomans/Turkey, Japan, Russia/USSR, China/PRC and maybe Iran and then leave it at that).

So if you want to use a UCS variant that doesn't give the CSA a colour or doesn't give the CSA a solid border then that's fine, nobody is going to stop you (nor should they). If on the other hand you and a group are creating a series of maps then it would be between yourself and the group to determine and agree upon what styles you want to use so that the map series is internally consistent.

Quote:

However I do have to disagree with the comment on Iran. The Islamic Revolution is partly or entirely responsible for a regime change in the United States, a regime change in Iraq, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War following, which later led to Iraq firing Scud Missiles into Israel, the establishment of a vicious regime in Iran, and finally culminating in the current state of al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, Islamic Iran today, Bush's disastrous yet mildly successful Iraq War, and heightened tensions in the Middle East. Now, I don't have a body count for that, but I'm pretty sure it totals relative to the Taiping Rebellion (some 2 million). As for Iran leading a series of Islamic Revolutions, we'll have to wait and see. You named 10 or 12 non-Muslim countries who "would have to see mass conversion to suddenly experience Islamic revolution" but what about the 50 or so Muslim-majority states that do not have an established Islamist state? Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, the Emirates, Qatar, Egypt (debatable). 1979 was an extremely powerful year, and while this has become off-topic, I don't think saying Iran's Revolution was insignificant in the context of global history, is at all accurate.

It's not insignificant, but it is hard to argue that the Iranian Revolution played just as a large role in shaping history as the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. The Islamic Revolution had an impact on America, but not anywhere on the scale of the Vietnam War. The Soviets were involved in Afghanistan from before the Iranian Revolution (involvement with the PDPA and assisting Afghanistan with military equipment and advisors) and Pakistan had been funding insurgents since before the Shah fell. Soviet intervention was triggered more by a cabal within the Politburo and Afghan internal politicking between the two main Communist factions (and Soviet disapproval of the overzealousness and radicalism of the faction that was running the show at the time). Most of what the Iranian Revolution did was regional in effect (excepting for the knock-on effects in the US). The Russian and Chinese Revolutions later resulted in Soviet involvement in Vietnam and Soviet, Chinese and American involvement in various African conflicts (Angola, Ethiopia-Somalia, Rhodesia) and involvement in the New World (Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua). The Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I (or II depending on how you count it), Gulf War II (or III; again depending on how you count it) and those other effects attributed to the Iranian Revolution are basically all regional. Iran's revolution hasn't inspired even semi-successful revolutionary movements in the rest of the Muslim World (the only parts of the earth which could be influenced by the Islamic Revolution) and this might in part be due to the fact that Iran's revolution was a Shi'ite Islamic Revolution while much of the rest of the Islamic world adheres to Sunni Islam. It's now been over 30 years since the Islamic Revolution and thus far it has been the only one. Within 30 years of the Russian Revolution we had the establishment of communist Mongolia, communist Tuva (later incorporated into the USSR), abortive communist revolutions in Hungary and Germany that were inspired by the Russian one, far-right groups gaining power partly on opposition to communism and then dragging the world into WWII and communist regimes being imposed (e.g. Hungary, Poland) or natively established (e.g. Yugoslavia) in over half-a-dozen countries in Eastern Europe and communist groups being aided in Asia (nothern Korea, China). Within 30 years of the Chinese Revolution we had communist regimes in Indochina (and even a war in which one communist regime was replaced by another in Cambodia), Chinese and Soviet-Cuban involvement in Angola, Albania turning towards China, etc. I have no doubt that the Islamic Revolution is significant and will remain so, but it's effects on the world are not nearly as widespread as the Revolutions in Russia and China.

SilverPhantom2 · #**929** July 29th, 2010, 12:48 AM

On the subject of Iran, I still have to disagree. Time will tell. Though I did not think of the Sunni/Shi'a necessity that Iran's situation takes into account. But you have to also recognize that Iran affecting the United States at a time where everything the United States does affects the entire world, first it's half, then the Soviet's half reacts. In that aspect, Iran was no just a regional power, but a major player in the Cold War world. Yes, the Soviet Union was involved in Afghnistan long before 1979, but the invasion and implementation of a Soviet-backed regime by bayonet point would have happened a lot earlier if America didn't have a firm ally with the Shah. When Iran left the American sphere, America allowed Iraq to enter it (sort of) and hoped Afghanistan would too. It was a complete reversal in the Middle East, and again, time will tell the significance.

For the purpose of the maps, such radical regime changes such as the ones in Iran, Spain, etc. should have the same radical color change as the USSR or China (again, de facto vs. de jure).

But I apologize for my ignorance as to the purpose of the UCS Base maps vs. Representing history exactly. The CSA's color, understandable. The hard border, I still believe is debatable.

Thande · #**930** July 29th, 2010, 12:50 AM

It's worth bearing in mind that the UCS maps developed from AH maps, not the other way around. For this reason, brief rebellions from OTL that show up very often as fully independent, long-lasting states in ATLs (such as the CSA) are considered by the UCS to be 'more real' than say Botswana or Honduras.

Chris S · #**931** July 29th, 2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

On the subject of Iran, I still have to disagree. Time will tell. Though I did not think of the Sunni/Shi'a necessity that Iran's situation takes into account. But you have to also recognize that Iran affecting the United States at a time where everything the United States does affects the entire world, first it's half, then the Soviet's half reacts. In that aspect, Iran was no just a regional power, but a major player in the Cold War world. Yes, the Soviet Union was involved in Afghnistan long before 1979, but the invasion and implementation of a Soviet-backed regime by bayonet point would have happened a lot earlier if America didn't have a firm ally with the Shah. When Iran left the American sphere, America allowed Iraq to enter it (sort of) and hoped Afghanistan would too. It was a complete reversal in the Middle East, and again, time will tell the significance.

Hmm.....I've never read anything to that effect before. The Shah was deposed in February 1979 but the Soviets didn't go into Afghanistan until December 1979. Prior to that from 1974 to 1977 Iran under the Shah had dealings with Daoud's Afghanistan (providing credit and technical assistance) but at the same time was supplying US equipment and weapons to Afghan insurgents. Following the coup in 1978 though Iran's ability to influence Afghanistan weakened severely. Also, in March 1979 (after the Shah was gone and long after the Shah had been losing power within Iran itself from 1977-1978) the Afghan government actually requested Soviet troops as a result of a massive uprising in Herat, but the Soviet leadership at the time (including Brezhnev and Kosygin) did not want to send troops. They weren't alone in this as top persons in the military (including Chief of the Soviet General Staff Marshal Ogarkov and his Deputy General of the Army Akhromeev) strongly objected to proposals for a limited contingent since they didn't feel the objectives could be realistically met. In addition most of the Politburo was more worried about how sending troops into Afghanistan would affect relations with the West (remember this was the time of Detente) primarily but were also concerned about how it would affect relations with regional neighbours including India (an ally), Iran and Pakistan. Iran from what I've read on the topic was definitely not the main/primary reason why the USSR didn't go into Afghanistan earlier. The USSR was concerned about its relations with Iran (naturally), but even after the Shah was definitely gone the Soviets turned down opportunities to send troops into Afghanistan.

Quote:

For the purpose of the maps, such radical regime changes such as the ones in Iran, Spain, etc. should have the same radical color change as the USSR or China (again, de facto vs. de jure).

Well actually there is a kind of pink that is occasionally used for Republican Spain but it is more of a colour used for any other radical change in a country such as a socialist (or even communist) United States. As for Iran, well you have to bear in mind that there are only so many colours that we as humans can distinguish. After all, once you go past red, green, blue, yellow, gray, orange, black (which can't really be used since it would be the same as the shorelines and borders), purple, violet, pink and brown there aren't really any more colours left. Even the Republican Spain pink is rather close (almost identical) to the Oman pink and Oman had an overseas empire along the East African coast (including most importantly Zanzibar) back in the 1600-1800s which is why it was given a colour. Add to it that the UCS often uses a shading system (so pink = Britain, light pink = British protectorate or maybe British occupied depending on the UCS variant used) and it means there are even less colours to go around. Not too long ago I remember doing a large map of Europe for 1946 and upon Thande's suggestion I had to change one of the shades of red used to show the USSR zone in Germany because it was rather close to the British pink. Even Iran's current colour is basically the darker shade of the Japanese yellow that should theoretically have only been used for a state that was in "personal union" with Japan (i.e. having a relationship with Japan rather like the Dominions have/had with Britain). It would be fun to have more colours, but until science finds a way to allow all humans to see novel colours without doing tricks with the eyes (which produce a temporary effect such as seeing red-green) then we are really just stuck with the colours we have. If you can come up with a radical colour change for Iran that doesn't end up producing an Iran that looks like it has entered into some kind of relationship with Turkey, Pakistan (both of which have green in some UCS variants and a green Iran would mean three countries with green touching each other - a definite no-no for map-making), Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Portugal, Ireland or Libya or with Iran, India, Oman, China, etc then feel free.

Also, one does have to bear in mind that despite being an AH site, not every revolution (of which there must be hundreds in history including the two Portuguese ones, a couple of English ones, some French ones, a few Spanish ones, a couple German ones, a couple Hungarian ones, numerous Chinese rebellions, about four or five Russian ones, the American one, the Cuban one (which arguably had a large effect on history too), a couple Iraqi ones, an Iranian one, a number in Africa and elsewhere...) will end up being widely discussed. Plus if anyone was to attempt to assign a different colour for each revolution there really wouldn't be enough colours to go around. And seeing as how the primary need for having colours on an AH map is to show possession of overseas territories then again the UCS evolved from assigning colours to the colonial powers first and then giving colours (since there would have been some available still) to the other major non-colonial powers. The People's Republic of China didn't even have a separate colour in the most original version since the PRC didn't appear on any maps using the scheme up to that point. It was only when there was a need (for a post 1946 map) that a colour was thought up for the PRC and even then it was partly to differentiate between the PRC on the Mainland and the rump ROC on Taiwan. Iran's revolution was complete in that there weren't any White Iranians retreating to Iraq (as White Russian forces did in retreating to Mongolia) or any Koumingtang Iranians retreating to some offshore Iranian island. Nor did Iran's revolution result in the break up of the Imperial State of Iran into separate states like Luristan, South Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, West Baluchistan and the Persian Republic and their eventual reunification as a federation (e.g. Union of Islamic Republics) instead of as a unitary state.

Quote:

But I apologize for my ignorance as to the purpose of the UCS Base maps vs. Representing history exactly. The CSA's color, understandable. The hard border, I still believe is debatable.

It may be debatable, but as was said before, it is not like the CSA is the only example of a totally unrecognized country being given a hard border on the standard-type UCS maps: First East Turkestan, Second East Turkestan, Vermont and Yucatan are all usually done the same way. Others would probably be too except for the fact that they were islands (1895 Republic of Formosa for instance) or surrounded by countries defined borders already and which didn't have some kind of claim to them (Rhodesia).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thande

It's worth bearing in mind that the UCS maps developed from AH maps, not the other way around. For this reason, brief rebellions from OTL that show up very often as fully independent, long-lasting states in ATLs (such as the CSA) are considered by the UCS to be 'more real' than say Botswana or Honduras.

Which is yet another reason (apart from the natural colour limitation) why post-Revolution Iran doesn't have a different colour from pre-Revolution Iran. The number of TLs that are focused on Iran and it's Revolution (or lack thereof depending on the TL) are probably greater in number than Taiping TLs but not nearly as numerous as TLs focusing on the Civil War, Russian Revolution and China.

Alex Richards · #**932** July 29th, 2010, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverPhantom2

For the purpose of the maps, such radical regime changes such as the ones in Iran, Spain, etc. should have the same radical color change as the USSR or China (again, de facto vs. de jure).

Well, Romul did create a version for Communist Spain in his series of the Civil War. But TBH, the only Facist state getting a new colour is Nazi Germany, and even then it's a darker version of the normal colour. Then there's the problem that Islamist states really need a Green colour (it just suits the political ideaology), but Saudi Arabia/Caliphate and Ottomons/Turkey already have Greens in the Area. Then there's Republican China with a bright green as well.

nlspeed · #**933** July 30th, 2010, 07:14 AM

This from this thread:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...=1#post3478694

The map I'm referring to is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:East-Hem_200bc.jpg

Is that Wikipedia map really correct? Sheba (which isn't on that Wikipedia map) seems to have been in modern Yemen, where at the Wikipedia map the Qataban is. Sheba possibly emigrated from Arabia to Africa. Here's a direct quote of Wikipedia:

In the medieval Ethiopian cultural work called the Kebra Nagast, Sheba was located in Ethiopia. Some scholars therefore point to a region in northern Tigray and Eritrea which was once called Saba (later called Meroe), as a possible link with the Biblical Sheba.

Well, Meroe was south of the Ptolemaic Empire, as can be seen on that Wikipedia map, which is correct about that. But Saba is in Arabia, above Qataban...On the Wikipedia article of Saba, I can't find anything about the fact that Saba emigrated from Africa to Arabia, or vice versa, or whatever. So, where was Sheba, because in 200 BC they were where Saba is on that Wikipedia map, to my knowledge.

Also, Scythia was a kingdom to my knowledge, yet there is only a mention of Scythians as if they were common barbarians. Dacia doesn't have any borders too, and as far as I know, is much more east, bordering the western part of the Black Sea. And wasn't Nok slightly to the west (but only slightly)? Many nations don't have any borders (Wu Sun, Mon-Khmer etcetera), and I find it a bit stupid to name the Germanic tribes 'Germanic tribes'. I mean, Teuton was in Denmark, Veneti in Poland (I think), and another tribe, also called Veneti, in Gaul (France)...They are all tribes and we know where they were in 200 BC. Why show where the Celts were, but not where the rest was? There is a lack of information about such 'barbarians' (try searching things like 'barbarian history'), which is a pity.

Could someone answer all my questions? Or provide a better map (with actual borders and such), because now I have 3 conflicting sources of the same time period (200 BC). Again, many thanks in advance.

Iori · #**934** July 30th, 2010, 08:54 AM

I'm not really sure which is the best way to show it (I've seen and have myself used different methods), but anyways, the world with the European Union shown as a thick outline around it constituent states.

Edit:
Map two posts below.