I'm afraid I seem to have misplaced that comment; I thought that discussion was in the Ad Astra per Aspera thread, for some odd reason. As this conflicts with my political views, I'm deleting the post now.
Map Thread VIII
- Thread starter Burton K Wheeler
- Start date
- Status
I'm afraid I seem to have misplaced that comment; I thought that discussion was in the Ad Astra per Aspera thread, for some odd reason. As this conflicts with my political views, I'm deleting the post now.
BEWARE OF THE MAP CRITIC!
First, this is a awful map, but you have potential, and this sounds interesting.
Secondly, CONVERGENT BORDERS!
Thirdly, Why no Plains in USA? Ontario and Quebec means Plains too!
Fourthly, a Independent Vancouver is implausible. I suggest you forget that piece.
Fifthly, CANADA UNDER BRIT RULE UNTIL 1990? I hope you mean 1900. If not, then this whole thing, TL and map and all, is so implausible.
Sixthly, Mexican states voting to join an slaver nation? That wouldnt happen!
Seventhly, Split Mexico will NOT work alongst state lines.
Eighthly, Missouri, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada AND UTAH?! That nation that you named the Confederate States would collapse soon after its independence.
Ninthly, What makes you think that with a PoD before 1776, that means a Mexican-American War? France or Spain could refuse to sell it to the USA.
Tenthly, A Confederate Cuba is the most cliche of any Southern Victory TLs.
I suggest for you to use a more different map, and consider that the borders could be different. And the timeline needs work, but I am sure people here will help. I'll offer more advice, if you ask me.
OK, this is not very good, in terms of both the historical scenario and the map itself. But since you're still new (and can hopefully learn from mistakes), I'll try to be civil, and not too harsh in my criticism.
To begin with, the borders are not very realistic given the point of divergence. At the time, both New Brunswick and PEI were part of Nova Scotia, and Ontario and Quebec (or Upper and Lower Canada, as they were known) were smaller than the modern-day provinces.
Also, if the point of divergence is that the United States is bigger to the north, then it's likely that the slavers will be a much weaker faction within Congress, and the "peculiar institution" may actually be forbidden early on in US history, with all slaves granted manumission. This might lead to the slavers revolting in order to keep control of their "property", and while this would of cause some kind of civil war within the US, it won't be the same as in our timeline, and since there are more northern states to oppose them, the south will have an even smaller chance of winning.
Given that the history of this US will be very different, the western states will have boundaries different from those that formed in our timeline. Looking at the History Channel's television program 'How the States got their Shapes' (or even stating the fact that there is such a program), one will know that there are many different conflicting interests that caused the United States to look the way it does, and that even the smallest difference could make things completely different.
Western Canada, at the time of the American Revolution, consisted of a few forts, all controlled by the Royal Hudson's Bay Company, and a few villages in modern-day Manitoba inhabited by the métis, a French-speaking people of partly native descent (like the mestizos in Latin America). The Columbia District (modern-day British Columbia) was only claimed much later.
There are many other pointers I'd like to give you, but thatd drag out this post into an unbearable wall of text. DrTron's pointers are a good start, and if you need more help, I'll be glad to give it; just PM me about it.
Both Ontario and New Brunswick didn't exist until after the American Revolution, when the influx of United Empire Loyalists from the former colonies necessitated their carvings from Quebec and Nova Scotia, respectively.
Also, the Catholic Francophones in Quebec had little interest in joining that rebellion those other colonies put on. The Brits just gave them a good deal with the Quebec Act, leaving the Yanks with essentially nothing to offer the French. The American mistreatment of the locals during their occupation of Montreal didn't exactly endear the rebels to the French either.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that those dastardly Yanks managed to gain lordship of Quebec, Ruperts Land would not remain in British hands for long. It wasn't a settler colony (in fact, the fur companies fought violently against settlement in the area), and without a very interested group of British subjects running the place from Montreal there is nothing preventing the Americans from just stepping in and taking it (which could easily have happened OTL were it not for the efforts of George Simpson).
EDIT: I see I was ninja'd by Ares96. Listen to what he's saying.
loughery111
Banned
That's not at all what I read it as, but it's your scenario so presumably you would know.
Ephraim Ben Raphael
Banned
Well people have different takes on different things.
Wow, sorry to have provoked a political uproar...
Bruce
If people start arguing about it then you know you've done a good job.
I'm learning his map skills and helping to keep people from quoting maps. I don't do the harsh critique, even if it can help, as it did to me.
Krall
Banned
Oh, alright then. But you must really learn how to critique poor maps for yourselves, you know.
I'd like to start with a note on historical accuracy. You mention that "5 (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia) more colonies joined the American Revolution", but these regions did not necessarily exist as colonies at the time of the American Revolution in the same way that the Thirteen Colonies did. Prince Edward Island was a colony at the time, but it was called "St. John's Island". Modern Quebec was divided between the Province of Quebec and Rupert's Land, which was operated by the Hudson Bay Company. Labrador, which is not part of America on your map, did not exist as an individual sub-division. Nova Scotia was an individual colony, but it covered all of modern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Ontario did not exist at all at this point in time.
The borders of your map are also incorrect - as I said Labrador did not exist as a sub-division at this point in time, and it's border on you map dates from 1927, and the western border of Ontario on your map dates from 1912. In addition to this, you have shown various islands - including Prince Edward Island and parts of Nova Scotia - as being part of British North America/Canada, when you explicitly stated that they were part of an independent America.
There are many other anachronistic borders on your map, such as the borders of California, Alaska, Utah, and West Virginia, and the borders of the Mexican provinces.
Anyway, historical accuracy aside I'd like to make some notes on your timeline. The timeline you've given us is very basic, vague and uninteresting - you state that events happen, but not why they happen. You say that more regions join in the American Revolution, but give us no information why. You also don't tell us why a Mexican Civil War broke out, or why the Confederacy had wars with Spain and Mexico. Heck, you haven't even told us how the Confederacy managed to gain independence, let alone how it managed to gain California, Utah, Arizona and Colorado!
Your map itself is basic as well, showing nothing beyond the exact political boundaries of the various countries. Various islands on the map have been left uncoloured, though they're hard to see as they are a very light shade of grey. Many islands have also been left off the map, most notably Cuba, which you said was part of the Confederacy.
To improve your map and your timeline you need to research the era surrounding your point of divergence in order to ensure that everything up to that point is historically accurate. You need to explain more about the background of your world - state why things happen rather than just stating that they do. Your map could be improved with a large, more detailed base map, as well as more details such as country's capitals or sub-divisions, and actual labels of the various countries themselves.
loughery111
Banned
Sorry, that sounds a lot more hostile in hindsight than it was intended to. It just seemed to me as if there was a lot of propagandizing being done by the "pro-establishment" representative, and that the "anti-establishment" one seemed more candid, as well as alluding to quite a few things that I wouldn't even consider tolerating IOTL, like the propagandizing of the education system.
The inspiration for this map comes from the Quote Game Thread. One of my replies involved a right-wing dictatorship in Britain, an Anarchist Revolution in Scotland, and Liverpool being experimentally released from the rule of law used by the English government as an example of "Why Anarchy Fails" (Of course, they hired a mob to make sure everything was as terrible as possible in the city). The dictatorship eventually fell to revolution, and the British Isles became a confederation of the socialist states that took its place.
I played around with the idea, and decided it needed a map.
THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNES
-The Social Republic of England, with its capital at Birmingham, leads the Association. Fairly similar to Tito's Yugoslavia.
-The Social Republic of Ireland is more democratic, with a lot of autonomous bits and powerful local councils.
-The Workers' Republic of Wales is a dictatorship, but a pretty nice one... so far.
-The Social Republic of Yorkshire is somewhat like OTL Scandinavia, but a tad further left.
-The Social Republic of Cornwall is kind of a mess. A good deal is occupied by the English.
-The Social Republic of London was created as part of the treaty with the remnants of Charles Beale's Neo-Heroicist government. It is a pretty nice place, but on edge.
-The Liverpool Commune is a bit technocratic, but tries to be democratic as well.
-The People's State of the Tyne is a nasty, oppressive police state. It has a wall mostly encircling it.
-The North British Anarchist Zone is a bunch of anarchist communes, of course. Manchester is sometimes considered separate, and sometimes the whole English part is.
THE LEAGUE OF NEO-HEROIC (A lot like fascism, with a technocratic bent) STATES
-The Heroic Republic of Great Britain and Ireland, generally known as Kent, is the remnant of Charles Beale's oppressive government. It is entirely propped up by the French, who like controlling a bit of the other side of the channel.
-The Greater French Heroic Republic is the strongest Neo-Heroic state. Is having trouble with colonies in revolt.
OTHER STATES
-The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was exiled to Aberdeen, the Orkneys and the Scottish western islands after the rise of the Neo-Heroicists and the Scottish Revolution. In the collapse of Beale's government, it (with some American support) reconquered some islands and the most supportive bit of Ireland. It is currently ruled, corruptly, from Belfast.
I played around with the idea, and decided it needed a map.
THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNES
-The Social Republic of England, with its capital at Birmingham, leads the Association. Fairly similar to Tito's Yugoslavia.
-The Social Republic of Ireland is more democratic, with a lot of autonomous bits and powerful local councils.
-The Workers' Republic of Wales is a dictatorship, but a pretty nice one... so far.
-The Social Republic of Yorkshire is somewhat like OTL Scandinavia, but a tad further left.
-The Social Republic of Cornwall is kind of a mess. A good deal is occupied by the English.
-The Social Republic of London was created as part of the treaty with the remnants of Charles Beale's Neo-Heroicist government. It is a pretty nice place, but on edge.
-The Liverpool Commune is a bit technocratic, but tries to be democratic as well.
-The People's State of the Tyne is a nasty, oppressive police state. It has a wall mostly encircling it.
-The North British Anarchist Zone is a bunch of anarchist communes, of course. Manchester is sometimes considered separate, and sometimes the whole English part is.
THE LEAGUE OF NEO-HEROIC (A lot like fascism, with a technocratic bent) STATES
-The Heroic Republic of Great Britain and Ireland, generally known as Kent, is the remnant of Charles Beale's oppressive government. It is entirely propped up by the French, who like controlling a bit of the other side of the channel.
-The Greater French Heroic Republic is the strongest Neo-Heroic state. Is having trouble with colonies in revolt.
OTHER STATES
-The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was exiled to Aberdeen, the Orkneys and the Scottish western islands after the rise of the Neo-Heroicists and the Scottish Revolution. In the collapse of Beale's government, it (with some American support) reconquered some islands and the most supportive bit of Ireland. It is currently ruled, corruptly, from Belfast.
Ephraim Ben Raphael
Banned
Ah. And that was indeed the case (hence two points of view), although you can find people who will take the position that propaganda exists in the education system IOTL, but there's no need to go there here.
And as usual Sapiento blows the entire map thread out of the water in one post. Good show sirrah.
Wow.
_____
And as usual Sapiento blows the entire map thread out of the water in one post. Good show sirrah.
Thank you! I'm glad the map receives such good feedback.
I Blame Communism
Banned
The UK appears to be the lands of the Jarl of Orkney and/or the Triath nan Eilean. Tell me it's gone all neo-Gaelo-Viking, because that makes as much sense as my new home of the Morningside Peoples' Commune and is much cooler.
Shit, an Ireland ruled by the Scots. There will be much secterianism, and no "Irish colonisation of Glasgow" to lessen the tension somewhat
I don't think the French would have cared anyway
I honestly haven't thought that much about it, but possibly. Only if, however, it somehow manages to result in French replacing English in England.
- Status