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

[Basileus Giorgios]

Still the 476 map : remade heavily Europe, made Africa and Arabia and copy-pasted Americas from

I think your Ghassanids are a bit too far east. Their capital was at Jābiya in the Golan Heights, and I think your map shows this area as being fully under Roman control at this point. Although, the whole issue of showing Constantinople's Arab clients is quite tricky, given allied Arabs tended to be at least semi-nomadic peoples drifting in and out of "proper" Roman territory in Syria and Palestine.

Also, on the 843 map, Crete should not be Byzantine: it fell in about 825 to the Arabs IIRC.

My final ERE point is that I think the Empire should be shown in standard Roman brown/maroon up until at least 700: Justinian's state had far more in common with that of Augustus than it does with that of Michael VIII Palaiologos' dominion, let alone modern Greece.

 

[Alex Richards]

far[/I] more in common with that of Augustus than it does with that of Michael VIII Palaiologos' dominion, let alone modern Greece.

But we use that for the ERE when the WRE still exists, so that would mean suddenly changing the colour in the middle of a reign.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think your Ghassanids are a bit too far east. Their capital was at Jābiya in the Golan Heights, and I think your map shows this area as being fully under Roman control at this point.

This map seems to imply Arabia eparchy extended quite far on the east.
Maybe it's an exageration, or as you say having a capital in Roman Territory or at its borders isn't unconciveble.

I still made a slight modification of borders, but I didn't really touched to overall situation, waiting for more informations.

Also, on the 843 map, Crete should not be Byzantine: it fell in about 825 to the Arabs IIRC.

Thanks, forgot about that.

My final ERE point is that I think the Empire should be shown in standard Roman brown/maroon up until at least 700: Justinian's state had far more in common with that of Augustus than it does with that of Michael VIII Palaiologos' dominion, let alone modern Greece.

As ERE co-exist with Western Roman Empire, that the colour doesn't indicate which one is more roman than the other but rather a political and geographical continuity, that we kind of need brown color for other polities, I disagree with the proposition.

In the same orders of ideas, Burgundy color serves for Burgundians even not in Burgundy itself and Valois Burgundy while it's not really connected (even that much geographically) with the Burgundians spare the name.

Or with the two chinese colours : having dark or light green doesn't say anything about siniziations or institutions, but is a convenience.

A chameleon-coloured ERE would be confusing : while I agree with your statement, we just can't represent anything we want on a map.

 

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

A chameleon-coloured ERE would be confusing : while I agree with your statement, we just can't represent anything we want on a map.

Could we treat the WRE as a Roman "Dominion" (that's what it was essentially) and use a darker shade for it?

 

[LSCatilina]

Could we treat the WRE as a Roman "Dominion" (that's what it was essentially) and use a darker shade for it?

Err. No, I don't think you can consider the WRE up to 476 being a dominion, aka under nominal sovereignty and enjoying some form of autonomy from a metropole.

It was independent from Constantinople, even rivaling, and had autonomous territory of its own that may need mapping as well.

Brown color isn't a prize for "most roman state ever", but showing a geographical and political continuity. Apart Justinian era, ERE didn't have this geographical continuity.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

This map seems to imply Arabia eparchy extended quite far on the east.
Maybe it's an exageration, or as you say having a capital in Roman Territory or at its borders isn't unconciveble.

I still made a slight modification of borders, but I didn't really touched to overall situation, waiting for more informations.

That's fair. I'd be slightly wary of that map series, as I know the borders of the Egyptian provinces (the area I know most about) are not 100% accurate. But yeah, representing the Ghassanids is tricky, as the border between Roman provinces proper and the kingdoms of their Arab allies don't seem to have been properly defined in the period.

It was independent from Constantinople, even rivaling, and had autonomous territory of its own that may need mapping as well.

Now, this is what I dispute. From the POV of contemporary Romans, the WRE and ERE were never at any point separate entities: it was all Romania, only with different administrative machinery for each area, just as (on a smaller scale) different provinces had different governors but remained part of the same diocese. I therefore think that introducing split colours for the late antique Roman state is a bit of a modern imposition onto the actual legal and practical situation of the time.

 

[Pischinovski]

Now, this is what I dispute. From the POV of contemporary Romans, the WRE and ERE were never at any point separate entities: it was all Romania, only with different administrative machinery for each area, just as (on a smaller scale) different provinces had different governors but remained part of the same diocese. I therefore think that introducing split colours for the late antique Roman state is a bit of a modern imposition onto the actual legal and practical situation of the time.

We could use Italian green for the west, Greek purple for the east and give it a Roman red outline.
Or: the west green-red striped and the east purple-red striped (like we do with personal unions)

 

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

We could use Italian green for the west, Greek purple for the east and give it a Roman red outline.
Or: the west green-red striped and the east purple-red striped (like we do with personal unions)

Striping would be a pain to make, and an eyesore I think, besides, personal union with whom? it was exactly the opposite, a juridical union with two or four emperors.
Green and purple with a Roman outline would be a better option I think, and it could work for the Tethrarchy as well.

EDIT: come think of it, the second option would look somehow like Lex Luthor's Empire... how would that look on a map, expecially if opposed to a Frankish-Saxon invasion?
I wonder, I wonder.......

 

[ATL Czar]

I've been working on an 1885 map (I know that there was one earlier on the board, but it was never finished and it is a little outdated), but I'm having a bit of trouble with Africa. Basically, if anyone can help to finish off the map, and colour it and what not, it would be much appreciated.

Here's the map:



And here's some maps to help with Africa:

http://www.mappery.com/map-of/Africa-Map-1885
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg142/Intergalactic_photos/img044.jpg
http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2009-09-17-303/Africa-Map-1885.jpg

From what I can tell, everything else is correct, but feel free to correct if there's any mistakes.

 

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

This is what I could do so far.

 

[Alex Richards]

Are you sure you're not from an ATL? American Bermuda? British Uruguay? It's on an outdated basemap as well, so while I'll see what I can do it's going to take a while.

 

[ATL Czar]

Are you sure you're not from an ATL? American Bermuda? British Uruguay? It's on an outdated basemap as well, so while I'll see what I can do it's going to take a while.

I wouldn't call it outdated. It's a revision I made to the Semmi projection, quite recently actually.

 

[Dustin]

That Brazil also looks like it is still Portuguese.

 

[Alex Richards]

I wouldn't call it outdated. It's a revision I made to the Semmi projection, quite recently actually.

Ah, it's the old dual-basemap situation again. If I might enquire, would you be offended if we made the updated Non-Semmi version the standard? Based on it being the one available in Metastatis's sig and so the most likely one people would chose of course.

 

[Heisenberg]

Made some corrections, chiefly to Canada and the Caribbean:

 

[metastasis_d]

Don't forget to mark Sikaiana as Hawaiian.

 

[Heisenberg]

I just noticed St. Pierre is marked as Canadian. Oops.

 

[herricks]

i need a good map of 1836-1840. i just need one map & would prefer closer to 1836 but any time in that timeframe will do. please & thank you

 

[iori]

Something I think would be very useful is if we all agreed on how to show territorial disputes; originally we used the red outline to show the territory claimed, however this has evolved to the red being used to show the de facto border of unrecognized states, with the national color being used for the claim lines and the dark grey for countries without colors, however the maps not only continue to use the red for claims in some cases, but in some actually use both the red AND the dark grey/national colors to show them.

Additionally, I'm not really sure that thing in Canada should be shown, afterall we don't show the original claims of the Utah Territory (which encompassed a massive chunk of the West).

 

[Diogenes]

Something I think would be very useful is if we all agreed on how to show territorial disputes; originally we used the red outline to show the territory claimed, however this has evolved to the red being used to show the de facto border of unrecognized states, with the national color being used for the claim lines and the dark grey for countries without colors, however the maps not only continue to use the red for claims in some cases, but in some actually use both the red AND the dark grey/national colors to show them.

Additionally, I'm not really sure that thing in Canada should be shown, afterall we don't show the original claims of the Utah Territory (which encompassed a massive chunk of the West).

Why not put those on, if they're close to the same thing?