lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on May 30, 2017 3:50:14 GMT
Map: Disunited States of America
This map called "OUR COUNTRY AS TRAITORS & TYRANTS WOULD HAVE IT: OR MAP OF THE DISUNITED STATES" is a Civil War era map of what the United States might look like should the South win is a Civil War and which was published in 1864.  The United States is divided into four parts:
Pacific States: west of Rockies, excluding New Mexico. Confederate States: New Mexico, Indian Territory. Missouri, south of the Missouri River, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and States south of these states Intermediate States: east of the Rockies, north of the Confederate States, up to and including Ohio. Atlantic States: made up of northeast United States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and New York. Is This the OLDEST Alternate History Map? YouTube
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 30, 2017 11:25:47 GMT
I don't know if its the oldest but doubt it, even if you really consider it as an AH map rather than just a piece of propaganda. Apart from anything else by the time it was posted, 1864 the Trent Incident was well in the past and the union so dominant that even if Britain and France had both, for whatever reason, intervened at that point they may not have been strong enough to preserve the south. If they did it would be at most as the states that rebelled in 1861 rather than the bloated south displayed and I can't see them, under those circumstances, being powerful enough or interested enough to split up the US further. In a Trent war scenario I can see a greater California possibly becoming independent and the US losing its Pacific coastline and possibly other territories but the division between the interior and Atlantic states makes no sense at all. In terms of an older one I remember reading references to a story, from the early Hanoverian times in the 18thC when an author projects continually growing British power to a conflict - IIRC about the early 20thC which sees Britain conquer pretty much all of Europe. Its not particularly inventive as the author assumes this war is fought with 18thC weaponry and tactics although the sheer size of the armies are much like OTL WWI with millions involved. If that contained one or more maps then it might have an argument for an earlier AH map although I would suspect there are probably earlier examples about. It depends on what you call an AH map. There are probably plenty of maps - albeit them primitive ones by our standards - of national claims or desires as to what the particular state wished to rule but would they qualify? Would a map of Atlantis qualify as an ASB AH map? I notice the same person who posted this video talks on traditions about Mu and Lemura and while those 'continents' I think were only really considered after ~1864 Atlantis is a much older myth. Or an old map that possibly includes Lyonesse? - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyonesse, for instance? Anyway an interesting insight into ideas at the time. Thanks for that.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on May 30, 2017 14:04:07 GMT
I don't know if its the oldest but doubt it, even if you really consider it as an AH map rather than just a piece of propaganda. Apart from anything else by the time it was posted, 1864 the Trent Incident was well in the past and the union so dominant that even if Britain and France had both, for whatever reason, intervened at that point they may not have been strong enough to preserve the south. If they did it would be at most as the states that rebelled in 1861 rather than the bloated south displayed and I can't see them, under those circumstances, being powerful enough or interested enough to split up the US further. In a Trent war scenario I can see a greater California possibly becoming independent and the US losing its Pacific coastline and possibly other territories but the division between the interior and Atlantic states makes no sense at all. In terms of an older one I remember reading references to a story, from the early Hanoverian times in the 18thC when an author projects continually growing British power to a conflict - IIRC about the early 20thC which sees Britain conquer pretty much all of Europe. Its not particularly inventive as the author assumes this war is fought with 18thC weaponry and tactics although the sheer size of the armies are much like OTL WWI with millions involved. If that contained one or more maps then it might have an argument for an earlier AH map although I would suspect there are probably earlier examples about. It depends on what you call an AH map. There are probably plenty of maps - albeit them primitive ones by our standards - of national claims or desires as to what the particular state wished to rule but would they qualify? Would a map of Atlantis qualify as an ASB AH map? I notice the same person who posted this video talks on traditions about Mu and Lemura and while those 'continents' I think were only really considered after ~1864 Atlantis is a much older myth. Or an old map that possibly includes Lyonesse? - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyonesse, for instance? Anyway an interesting insight into ideas at the time. Thanks for that. I wonder what effect the breakup of the United States will have on Mexico, will the 2nd Mexican Empire survive ore will it only last until 1870 when the 2nd French Empire loses the Franco-Prussian War and as a result the 2nd French Empire redraws its support of the 2nd Mexican Empire, unless the CSA backs them from 1870 on wards. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 30, 2017 21:38:28 GMT
I don't know if its the oldest but doubt it, even if you really consider it as an AH map rather than just a piece of propaganda. Apart from anything else by the time it was posted, 1864 the Trent Incident was well in the past and the union so dominant that even if Britain and France had both, for whatever reason, intervened at that point they may not have been strong enough to preserve the south. If they did it would be at most as the states that rebelled in 1861 rather than the bloated south displayed and I can't see them, under those circumstances, being powerful enough or interested enough to split up the US further. In a Trent war scenario I can see a greater California possibly becoming independent and the US losing its Pacific coastline and possibly other territories but the division between the interior and Atlantic states makes no sense at all. In terms of an older one I remember reading references to a story, from the early Hanoverian times in the 18thC when an author projects continually growing British power to a conflict - IIRC about the early 20thC which sees Britain conquer pretty much all of Europe. Its not particularly inventive as the author assumes this war is fought with 18thC weaponry and tactics although the sheer size of the armies are much like OTL WWI with millions involved. If that contained one or more maps then it might have an argument for an earlier AH map although I would suspect there are probably earlier examples about. It depends on what you call an AH map. There are probably plenty of maps - albeit them primitive ones by our standards - of national claims or desires as to what the particular state wished to rule but would they qualify? Would a map of Atlantis qualify as an ASB AH map? I notice the same person who posted this video talks on traditions about Mu and Lemura and while those 'continents' I think were only really considered after ~1864 Atlantis is a much older myth. Or an old map that possibly includes Lyonesse? - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyonesse, for instance? Anyway an interesting insight into ideas at the time. Thanks for that. I wonder what effect the breakup of the United States will have on Mexico, will the 2nd Mexican Empire survive ore will it only last until 1870 when the 2nd French Empire loses the Franco-Prussian War and as a result the 2nd French Empire redraws its support of the 2nd Mexican Empire, unless the CSA backs them from 1870 on wards. If the 2nd Mexican empire remains dependent on the 2nd French empire it will fall at some point. Even if France avoids the war with Prussia or manages to win it sooner or later a continued military presence in Mexico will prove too expensive, either militarily, economically or in terms of blood and will-power. For it to survive the empire must gain enough local support to maintain itself. I suspect this is unlikely but not totally impossible. One possible factor is if the south won independence, especially if without too much bloodshed, it might look to expand and one option might be into Mexico. [Although this is unlikely while the French are there plus it would depend on what the situation with the north is as they might well oppose such an expansion.] The 2nd empire might well last longer if the union is distracted enough by defeat and the loss of the south to be unwilling to intervene as OTL, or alternatively a defeated north might seek to pressurise the French as a sign it hasn't lost too much power and influence. More likely to be the former I suspect but would depend on the circumstances. The big possible exception might be if the south 'won' via European intervention in its favour that including the French - with or without the British. In that case the north might lose heavily enough that it lacks the power while the south might be friendly enough that it helps maintain the empire, at least for a while. |
|
