Map Thread XII

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOCATION ACQUIRED
Ingress_World_Map.png
 
With a POD of the fourth crusade, how did the Byzantines lose the south coast of Anatolia?

Why is it called Muscovy and not Russia? Did the Grand Prince of Moscow ignore Novgorod and invade the caucasian mountains instead?

Its possible your armenia republic is a bit of an Anachronism, and ignores the potential of the Kingdom of Cilicia with a stronger Byzantine Empire near it.

Lastly, if the pod is 1204, The mongols would have left some impact, which seems unseen in the map.

1. Invasions from the Anatolian Beyliks

2. The Mongols do invade, and help forge the Persian Shahdom. Also, the Russian chronology remains much the same with the Mongols, hence the rise of Muscovy.

3. Again, the Beyliks destroyed/ the Cilician Armenians. The Byzantine republic recognised the Armenian's independence given it was a republic.

4. And yes I goofed the Jerusalem/ Acre free cities ;)
 

Deleted member 67076

The Byzantine republic of Anatolia:

An alternate timeline where the Byzantines succeeded in repelling the 4th crusade: as a result, no Ottoman empire.

However, the empire split around 1500AD, resulting in an Anatolian republic, and an autocratic 'Greek' kingdom. It continues to war with the Islamist Anatolian Beyliks, as well as Venice and the Greek kingdom.
There is literally no way they would revert to a republic, nor call themselves Byzantines.

And the remnant in Greece would claim to be the true empire; thus calling themselves the Roman Empire.

Besides, why Kingdom of Hellenes?:confused: Hellenes was a huge insult in the empire, on par with the N-word in America. The people there never identified as Greeks, or as an ethnic group for that matter.
 

Gian

Banned
The map was traced over a big map I patched together from Google maps. So the relief stuff just came from making a Google map in terrain mode without any labels, and then overlaying it as a transparent layer.

Do you mind if you can provide us the links to the Google Maps terrain map without labels?
 

Arkocento

Donor
1. Invasions from the Anatolian Beyliks

2. The Mongols do invade, and help forge the Persian Shahdom. Also, the Russian chronology remains much the same with the Mongols, hence the rise of Muscovy.

3. Again, the Beyliks destroyed/ the Cilician Armenians. The Byzantine republic recognised the Armenian's independence given it was a republic.

4. And yes I goofed the Jerusalem/ Acre free cities ;)
See
There is literally no way they would revert to a republic, nor call themselves Byzantines.
That slipped my mind too, Byzantine was coined by some german historian in the 1800s afaik.
1. But the Mongols invaded, wouldn't they completely destroy cohesion in Anatolia?
2. Again, if its 1580 then its no longer Muscovy, its Russia. the Tsardom of Russia to be specific.
3. How is it a republic again? at what point between 1204 and 1580 did the Basileus lose power, and at what point did that power end up in the control of a Body of people? Another question would be why is it "Hellenic Kingdom of Byzantium" not only does it not control what would be Byzantium (Constantinople) but it also borrow way too much resemblance to Modern Greece, with added irredentist claims (North Epirus, Macedonia)
4. You messed up a little bit everywhere, the map in europe has some really odd white lines which aren't in Asia, on the edge of the Adriatic Mandates of Venice (Which by that you clearly have to mean "Most Serene Republic of Venice" Or you are Anachronising rather harshly ) which are the same color of New Khanate of Bulgaria (How it went from being the Second Bulgar Empire to that, I would like to know as well )

Finally, there is a rather large amount of emphasis on Ethnicity, which is a few centuries too early to make sense.
 
See

That slipped my mind too, Byzantine was coined by some german historian in the 1800s afaik.
1. But the Mongols invaded, wouldn't they completely destroy cohesion in Anatolia?
2. Again, if its 1580 then its no longer Muscovy, its Russia. the Tsardom of Russia to be specific.
3. How is it a republic again? at what point between 1204 and 1580 did the Basileus lose power, and at what point did that power end up in the control of a Body of people? Another question would be why is it "Hellenic Kingdom of Byzantium" not only does it not control what would be Byzantium (Constantinople) but it also borrow way too much resemblance to Modern Greece, with added irredentist claims (North Epirus, Macedonia)
4. You messed up a little bit everywhere, the map in europe has some really odd white lines which aren't in Asia, on the edge of the Adriatic Mandates of Venice (Which by that you clearly have to mean "Most Serene Republic of Venice" Or you are Anachronising rather harshly ) which are the same color of New Khanate of Bulgaria (How it went from being the Second Bulgar Empire to that, I would like to know as well )

Finally, there is a rather large amount of emphasis on Ethnicity, which is a few centuries too early to make sense.

1: Destroy cohesion? Not necessarily. As with most migrating hordes, they drive those before them. So there'd be a panicky departure, sure, but it's "Oh shit, here they come - guess we need to get up and go that a'way!" So hardly total anarchy.

No idea bout the rest.
 
See

That slipped my mind too, Byzantine was coined by some german historian in the 1800s afaik.
1. But the Mongols invaded, wouldn't they completely destroy cohesion in Anatolia?
2. Again, if its 1580 then its no longer Muscovy, its Russia. the Tsardom of Russia to be specific.
3. How is it a republic again? at what point between 1204 and 1580 did the Basileus lose power, and at what point did that power end up in the control of a Body of people? Another question would be why is it "Hellenic Kingdom of Byzantium" not only does it not control what would be Byzantium (Constantinople) but it also borrow way too much resemblance to Modern Greece, with added irredentist claims (North Epirus, Macedonia)
4. You messed up a little bit everywhere, the map in europe has some really odd white lines which aren't in Asia, on the edge of the Adriatic Mandates of Venice (Which by that you clearly have to mean "Most Serene Republic of Venice" Or you are Anachronising rather harshly ) which are the same color of New Khanate of Bulgaria (How it went from being the Second Bulgar Empire to that, I would like to know as well )

Finally, there is a rather large amount of emphasis on Ethnicity, which is a few centuries too early to make sense.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it tbh, these are just ideas, who's to say that the Mongols would've even invaded in this time frame? I didn't provide a timeline tbf mind
 
The British... annexed Venezuela. How the hell are they going to hold that? :confused:

Actually, if you look closely, you can see that it's just British influence. It's actually really plausible since the struggle for independence and subsequent wars and conflict cost Venezuela nearly a third of its population. By 1830, it was estimated to be around 800,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela#Independence

So basically what happens in the war is that with some Brazilian help, Britain establishes a sphere of influence/puppet government (from those who opposed the war in the first place) in Venezuela that maintains much friendlier and non-Guyana related relations with Britain.

Venezuela is still independent and a republic, and NOT a British Protectorate. However, the British have tremendous influence in the nation, hence the appropriate marking as such on the map. It's hard to see, but it's there.

Also, weren't the Mexicans and British Allied? If so, why did Mexico give up the north to the British? And at such odd border?

What's up with that triangle in California?

^^^^ Answering both of these simultaneously.

Yes, the Mexicans and British are allied but that still doesn't change the reality of northern Mexico at the time which was one of anger toward the central government. With later (and direct) military help from the British the Americans are pushed back.

At the war's conclusion, Britain wants financial compensation for its military assistance in Mexico, but Mexico is still really poor. There are two mindsets among the British: one of total ownership of the Californias north and west of the Colorado River, and the other of extracting business preference/privilege from the area. Meanwhile, Mexicans and their leadership are unwilling to let so much territory go after all the bloodshed and loss of Texas (which while smaller, would still sting).

In the end, a compromise is reached when Mexico agrees to cede a chunk of northwestern Mexico to the British. With the British presence extending down to around Montana de Oro, the Mexicans agree that should be the extent and since the area was largely unsettled, is not seen as a terrible and huge loss. Additionally, much of California wasn't fully explored yet, so there were few geographic features aside from the Colorado River to help determine borders. As a result, a demarcation line of sorts is established by drawing a line from the edge of the Columbia District (Oregon Country) down to Montana de Oro. It eventually becomes the de facto border between British California and the Republic of Mexico since most of it is desert and mountains.

That's the origin of British California/"The California Wedge".
 

Deleted member 67076

Mexico would rather be in an ass load of debt to Britain than give up most of California; especially the good parts of it. No one says you need to pay your debts immediately. More likely its just added to the existing Mexican debt and the Mexican government agrees to send money to Britain regularly.

As for Venezuela, that makes sense.
 
I guess that would depend on just how much debt Mexico is in and how stable their government is. It isn't hard to imagine a Mexico teetering on the brink and in desperate need of funds.
 
So this map is for what I like to call an alternate history within an alternate history. The basis is exactly from "The Red Baron's Mitteleuropa" but several differences will be made in this passage. Although there will be similar or exact events that happened in this scenario, they will be different in several ways.


----


The survival of the famous Red Baron (due to the busted engine, just like the Red Baron TL's PoD) and an obscure Austrian-born Bavarian messenger named Adolf Hitler would trigger a series of deadly events that made Europe extremely dangerous in the inter-war era, especially with the surrender of the Russian Republic (led by Kerensky) after a failed July Offensive. The complete and utter humiliation of the Russian Republic, along with the assassination of Vladimir Lenin at the hands of Fanny Kaplan had effectively split the Bolshevik Party apart as Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin's enmity with each other exploded. The split allowed a coalition of Socialist Revolutionaries and the White movement to form a temporary truce in order to exploit the rift within the Bolsheviks. The big trade off however, was that in August of 1917 when Benito Mussolini was killed by a mortar strike.

While the Great War would not formally end until August of 1919 with an exhausted Europe no longer willing to slug it out any further. Yet the short-lived Central Powers celebration of Russia's fall meant that the ethnic groups within the crumbling Hapsburg Empire would instigate revolts against Vienna's control. By 1920, the Central Powers were declared as the defeated villains who had to pay up. In the Treaty of Sedan (TTL's Treaty of Versailles), Germany is once again declared the guilty party who started the war and was ordered to pay reparations. It was also in the so-called Balkan Negotiations that the Serbian delegation demanded more compensation for their suffering (as Russia's early collapse increased Austro-Hungarian troops and made the occupation much longer and more painful) with territories in the Balkans. However, Bulgaria continued to resist even after Germany was forced to call for an armistice and would continue to fund guerrilla groups such as IMRO.

The 1920s would be dominated by hotheaded revolutionaries frustrated at the apparent inability of their governments to soothe their hardships and the extremist parties jockeyed for power. The far-left and far-right movements in Germany would suffer a series of splits that benefited the Weimar Republic as they represented the lesser of two evils but the potential alliance between Ernst Niekisch and the Strasser brothers (caused by the merger of the Old Socialist Party that was run by Niekisch and the Strasserist wing of the Nazi Party) plus their reliance on the newly emerging Soviet state (that fell under Nikolai Bukharin's control) for advice had alarmed Europe to the dangers of communism. Yet in Russia Bukharin's control would not last long as the increasingly disgruntled Red Army officers were appalled by the sheer incompetence and bickering of the divided Bolsheviks to the point where the Red Army made a deal with an exiled White Russian emigre called the Smenovekhovtsy where they will appoint several of its members into various positions of the Soviet government.

The growing strength of the so-called "Red Bonapartist Junta" managed to create their own version of the Politburo where although they paid lip service to Marxism, they actually began to repudiate and even purge alien elements from Russian Socialism and thus would more likely to resemble a typical far-right military dictatorship than a far-left one. The 'Red Bonapartist Junta' would inspire an unlikely officer in the German Army to radicalize its officer corps by selecting the most ideologically competent and reliable (in both military and politics) officers for the group. Led by Hans von Seeckt, the German People's Military Council would also become a vital component of Ernst Niekisch's newly formed Radical German People's Movement. The official split of the Nazi Party into the Strasser faction and that of the Hitler factions greatly weakened the party to the point where Adolf Hitler is forced to court conservative circles, of whom were led by Von Richthofen. As the Red Baron develop a raw sense of contempt for the "Fuhrer" wannabe, the German far-right movement is becoming more impotent.

Yet not all was well in Europe, for during the Treaty of Sedan's negotiations the Serbian demands for territory in Northern Albania as well as the Greek demands for southern Albania forced a reluctant President Wilson to reject their claims due to his unflinching devotion to preserving Albanian statehood. Thus as Serbia and Greece were cheated from their territorial gains, the Serbs would also be forced to partition Macedonia with Bulgaria in exchange for peace. The bubbling resentment towards the Allies over what it saw was the robbery of the territories that would have become a part of "Greater Serbia" would result in the most unlikely alliance forming between Gabriele D'Annunzio and Kosta Pecanac (whose fiery rhetoric stemming from his experience in the failed Toplica Uprising had attracted scores of disgruntled Serbian war veterans). With Greece entering this informal alliance (they became anti-American due to Wilson's pro-Albania stance because they each had designs on Albanian territory), the reactionary conservative revolution in the Med would pose a serious challenge.

During the Russian Civil War (despite the split within the Bolsheviks as democrats, Tsarists and anarchists also fought each other), the Red Army junta opted to not invade Poland instead due to possible loss of manpower and instead focused on propping up the Lithuanian Socialist Soviet Republic. As a result, Poland eventually lost more territory to the USSR but in the process, the Red Lithuanian state expanded its borders. The chaos that unfolded in Central Europe did allow the Soviet junta to reclaim much of their lost territories but the fate of Estonia and Latvia was in question. It was also during the 1920s that Finland also had a vicious civil war between socialist revolutionaries and conservatives, but with Lithuania under Soviet influence, it was only a matter of time before the two remaining Baltic States would fall under Soviet control. Surprisingly, they would not fall until the late 1940s.

Germany on the other hand, saw the potential alliance between Niekisch and the Strasser brothers evolve into an actual, official alliance with the outbreak of the German Civil War from 1928 until 1932 (the civil war broke out over the collapsing German economy which struggled to keep up with the payments and a German conservative junta launched a coup that not only destroyed the Weimar Republic, but they declared a default on their war reparations*) that saw a three-way melee between the Niekischite-Strasserist 'National Bolshevik' faction, the Conservative faction (led by Hindenburg, Ludendorff and von Richthofen), and the rump Nazi faction led by Hitler. By the 1930s however, Germany has been de facto split into three parts, with the Niekisch-Strasser faction holding northern Germany sans East Prussia, which is held by the conservative faction (with Koenigsberg as their de facto capital but surrounded by a hostile, revanchist Poland and the pro-Soviet Lithuanian SSR), and southern Germany is dominated by the rump Nazi Party.


*Kinda like what happen in the Red Baron TL.

BetweenTwoTyrants01.PNG
 
So this map is for what I like to call an alternate history within an alternate history. The basis is exactly from "The Red Baron's Mitteleuropa" but several differences will be made in this passage. Although there will be similar or exact events that happened in this scenario, they will be different in several ways.

Are the things from OTL with the Americans declining a mandate over much of Turkey (with the British expecting them of extending it from Armenia and the Straits to the rest of non-occupied Anatolia) or the suppression of the report where massive amounts of leaders from tribes and towns in the Levant asking to be either given immediate independence or be placed under an American mandate? Combined with the likely discrimination of Bosniaks, Albanians, Pomaks, and Turks in the Balkans, the Italians crushing the population of the Libyans of the interior, and the Americans being the only one without some sort of discrimination against Muslim minorities (besides whoever gets to the US and those in Mindanoa. Those would probably be overlooked), might the US be seen as the Western State to use as a political rolemodel? Or at least as a business partner, as they didn't tend to invade Middle Eastern countries for not repaying loans in an orderly fashion.
 
Are the things from OTL with the Americans declining a mandate over much of Turkey (with the British expecting them of extending it from Armenia and the Straits to the rest of non-occupied Anatolia) or the suppression of the report where massive amounts of leaders from tribes and towns in the Levant asking to be either given immediate independence or be placed under an American mandate? Combined with the likely discrimination of Bosniaks, Albanians, Pomaks, and Turks in the Balkans, the Italians crushing the population of the Libyans of the interior, and the Americans being the only one without some sort of discrimination against Muslim minorities (besides whoever gets to the US and those in Mindanoa. Those would probably be overlooked), might the US be seen as the Western State to use as a political rolemodel? Or at least as a business partner, as they didn't tend to invade Middle Eastern countries for not repaying loans in an orderly fashion.

In this case the Americans would still reject a mandate over much of Turkey, but support for Albanian statehood may be longer, even if Italy, Greece and Serbia may have other words with them. The Muslim world could potentially see the USA as a reliable partner, but where would that leave the Jews?
 
Franks not Arabs conquer Spain.

Why would they do that? Visigothic Spain was a Christian nation with about as much legitimacy as Francia, and the only reason Charlemagne went in that direction was because the Muslims might threaten his own realm.

Also, Poland wouldn't be a unified state in the early ninth century, and the Magyars didn't even arrive in Pannonia until 895.
 
Mexico would rather be in an ass load of debt to Britain than give up most of California; especially the good parts of it. No one says you need to pay your debts immediately. More likely its just added to the existing Mexican debt and the Mexican government agrees to send money to Britain regularly.

As for Venezuela, that makes sense.

Except it ISN'T most of California.

The following (red-coloured) is more or less the territory of Alta California before the OTL Mexican-American War:



The following (blue) is the "California Grant" in relation to Alta California:

 
This is a WIP of a TL loosely based off of my Total War Rome 2 Game.
I played as Carthage. The POD is 259 BC while Carthage is at war With Rome, Syracuse, and the Celtici in Iberia. Note that everything i say focuses on the territotial evolution of Carthage. That year the Syracusans of Sicily manage a crushing military victory kicking Carthage off the Island.

By 226 BC Carthage is busy trying to keep their Economy strong without using conquest because the Military continues to recuperate.
Also by 226 BC the insignificant Iberian Tribe called the Celtici are defeated by the Carhaginian Ally of Nova Carthago whom the Carthaginians call Carthagians.
By 212 BC Rome Has been busy dealing with Etruscans, Venetti and other Celts with Large Difficulty but still manage to spare enough troops to kick Carthage out Sardinia. Shortly After Roman Sardinia is Conquered by the Etruscans. The Loss to Rome began the "Dark Days of Carthage". The "Dark Days" last from 212-140 BC.

From 207-199 BC Carthage is Busy defending the Last Libyan City from the Barbarian Nasamones, Masaeyli, and Garamantians. By 203 By The Carthagians mange to Conquer the Masaeyli giving Libya enough room to manuever with their Growing mercenary Armies. The Defense of libya Was Successful and Libya began to grow. At 196 BC a small but notable Carthaginian gain is made in a Libyan Province. 6 years later Carthage manages to bring war back to Syracuse. Within 1-1/2 Years Sicily is Defeated but Officials make a horrendous mistakke by Subjugating instead of Conquering the Syracusans. Within 4 years Syracuse Successfully kicks Carthage back out of Sicily. The same year as a result of defeat by Syracusans Slaves manage to successfully revolt and take control of the Balaeric Islands. By 165 BC Slaves again manage a succssful revolt kicking Carthaginian Influence out Of Iberia. But under a good leader Carthage finally manages to conquer Sicily and the Syracusans. By 159 BC the Nasamones and Garamantians are no longr on the Defensive against Libya and Libya is defeated by them. In 152 BC Romans arrive to free Sicily but are recalled to deal with Northern threats. Under one of Hannibal's relatives and with perfectly sound strategy Carthage move north into Italy picking off Roman Troops, abnd then City by City until Rome itself was Conquered.
All of Roman Territory is annexed but continued advances are halted to deal with the problems quick overextension brought. The Dark Days officially end 12 years later.

By 118 BC the problems caused by quick overextension are quelled but Velathri is lost when the Etruscans of Corsica and Sardinia take it from revolting Carthaginian Slaves. The same year war with Delmatae begins.
By 92 BC Delmatae is conquered as is all of Southern Gaul, as the Gauls had some to do with our expulsion from Iberia. By 78 BC more of Gaul falls and the Nasamones and Garamantians are retreating from the superior Carthaginian forces. By 59 BC all of Gaul is conquered.
9 years later Carthagininan presence in iberia is made clear as 2 thirds of Iberia are now under Carthaginian control. That same year Alexandria is annexed from Egypt to Carthage and the Nasamones and Garamantians are conquered. By 43 BC all of Iberia is under Carthaginian Occupation.

3 years later the remains of Nova Carthago are assimilated into the nation.
In 36 BC a celtic rebellion occurs and is crushed.
A 7 month Civil war in 32 BC turned the Empire into a true Republic.
By 27 BC all of Egypt is Conquered.
6 years later Athens is captured and the War with Sparta nears an end.
By 15 BC Sparta is conquered.

This map takes place in 14 BC when Carthage is at war with Galatia.
Feedback would be appreciated. Help with the map would be great!
Their are 4 other major Powers. That Red, North of the Caspian sea is Parthia.
The Green below it is the Medes.
Then their is the Persian Horde Occupying Arabia.
Then their is the Celtic Boli who have been pushed north by Carthaginian advances but have successfully created an empire while also pushing most Germans eastward.

Total War Rome 2.png
 
Last edited:
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top