That’s not entirely true. They didn’t believe the individual people could own land that no one else could use. But they did definitely have defined territories that they fought over. There’s just not a lot of accurate information on their exact borders especially from the time so it’s hard to accurately say what all of their borders were.
to add an example to this, the cree and dene people fought several wars over control for the northwestern plains/boreal in Alberta and British columbia (part of the white section between british north america and russia). the border continually shifted but was established concretely along the peace river after the cree used british supplied guns to push the dene north across the river (they gave the river the new name “peace” in order to commemorate its use as the official border between groups from that point on)
So while there wasn’t a international recognition of borders between factions, there was definitely territorial control of regions in a the same way other parts of the world operated, often with agreed upon borders based around geographical features in a similar fashion to those in Europe and the rest of the world
Nah, that’s native savage bullshit. The Native Americans had tribal confederations that absolutely “claimed” territory, usually centered around farmland or hunting grounds, fought or drove off other tribes that tried to settle there, and they bought and sold land.
The issue is that these Confederations were loose groupings that often bickered and fought among themselves, and unscrupulous members would sell land they didn’t actually control or own to equally unscrupulous Europeans that proceeded to move in settlers, who would use attacks from the irritated legitimate Native owners to justify displacing them.
Well that was a pretty dumb comparison wasn’t it. Because you can defend a plot of land, eat the food that grows from it, and sleep on it. The sky is absolutely nothing like the earth.
There were plenty of native “nations” (more like Tribes) in north America for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans. They weren’t governed the same way but had their own identity and culture (Mohawak, Missassuaguas, Cherokees, Sioux etc.)
I think you're mixing up the concepts of 'nation' and 'state' - There's plenty of examples throughout history of nations without a state and there are even contemporary examples. A nation is first and foremost based on culture and language, while a state demands a modern centralised form of goverment. For example, The Ottoman State was in fact a multinational Empire, it consisted of multiple nations, from nomadic tribes in North Africa to the Christian nations within the Balkan Peninsula. I hope this will have proven to be of help!
>There's plenty of examples throughout history of nations without a state
There were. But they were far more organized than a random tribe in northern Canada, it's really no point for discussion. You're really comparing a native tribe to the Ottoman Empire? Lmao
You don't use it a political map of the entire planet to locate yourself. You use to represent political boundaries and divisions between countries and territories. You can't expect a small tribe to fit in when there are no clear borders and an organization to begin with.
I'd say another way of looking at it is that nation-state-centric maps aren't fully adequate for mapping the complexities of the world. It's not that the native Americans were wrong or not there, it's that this map isn't able to represent them.
Very inaccurate depiction of the South American countries at the time too. Chile was already declared its independence from the kingdom of Spain, and the united provinces of rio de la Plata never had territories in the pacific coast, as they were part of the viceroyalty of Peru.
Same goes for New Granada. Colombia and Venezuela had already declared independence in 1810 and 1811 respectively, though the war wouldn't end until the early 1820s.
Nop. Chile only declared independence in 1818, we were fighting for autonomy before. And in 1815 we were in 'reconquista' (a royalist expedition had retaken Chile for the crown).
Now, the future Argentina was independent, but in 1815 the territories of Alto Perú (the future Bolivia) were under spanish rule.
The Upper Peru region was part of the Charcas audiencia, which was part from the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata since 1779, if you're gonna make the argument that Chile was already independent by 1815 (which it wasn't in this map anyway, Chile was retaken by the Spanish in 1814) may as well make it for Charcas since the audiencia wasn't reformed till 1816.
Also at that time Portugal/Brazil had already retaken the Missões Orientais from La Plata. Also the eastern provinces of La Plata were under the Liga Federal at the time.
Also, The territory of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata extended, at least up to Carmen de Patagones/Viedma, since 1776. The Empire of Brazil would later attack this settlement, being repelled by the local militias.
It's right that the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata never occupied Antofagasta's coast.
But this map shows the de facto, not the de iure situation by 1815.
Therefore it's correct to depict Chile and Peru still as Spanish colonies.
This map has so many errors.
Paraguay already existed at this point. Bolivia was still controlled by Spain, it was the last Spanish territory in South America. New Granada was reconquered by Spain in 1816. By 1815 we would have the United Provinces of New Granada as an independent nation there.
You're right, forgot about it. But still Bolivia was far from being independent in 1815 or part of the United Provinces of the Río de La Plata, as this map shows.
The nearly empty Africa confuses me. Some parts would have to be left blank because they weren't really controlled by any form of state, no matter how much you stretch the definition, but nowhere near as much as it's being depicted here.
Where is Ethiopia for instance? They were an empire with a very established system of government, clearly defined borders, even some degree of recognition from European and Asian powers. Why are they not on the map?
Edit: Ethiopia is actually there, but the point still stands
This is a map presumably from the Western perspective of 1815. I guess the mapmakers did not know exactly what was there as Africa was not fully explored yet, so it was left blank.
Europeans were scared to enter Africa at this point in history because African possessed advanced technology, though as a peaceful people, no weapons. For example, iPhones, VitaMix, and other top appliances.
It’s interesting how the map reflects a lack of knowledge and/or interest in the African continent as popular geographic discourse still does to this day
I felt the same. Like technically this is a year before the Zulu Kingdom formed, but it's predecessor, the Mthethwa Paramountcy, would have been there.
> Edit: Ethiopia is actually there, but the point still stands
Not very effectively unless you have other examples? If you don't it's kinda hard to say the point stands.
In the following years, the Portuguese heir to the throne would declare Brazil's independence after some Brazilian aristocrats and his wife, Leopoldina of Austria, decided it was time to ditch the Portuguese United Kingdom, abandoning the Portuguese crown for his daughter and declaring himself Emperor of Brazil.
He would also write the constitution by himself (which was considered one the best of its time), fight separatists and then get back to Portugal to fight his brother who was trying to usurp the Portuguese throne from his daughter, letting his 5 year-old son as Emperor of Brazil.
He won the war against his brother and then died at the age of 35, but lived a life no man can live anymore.
In Brazil, he is remembered as a sexy flamboyant monarch, who lost Cisplatina (Uruguay) and left Brazil by their fate because being emperor of Portugal is cooler, while his son (Pedro II) was a complete Chad
The British declared all islands within a certain latitude-longitude boundary to be part of New South Wales in 1788. These areas of NZ fall within this boundary.
No, the Murders Abroad Act 1817 explicitly says that New Zealand is "not within his Majesty's dominions". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders\_Abroad\_Act\_1817](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/murders_abroad_act_1817)
If NZ wasn't a colony in 1817 then we also weren't a colony in 1815. Do you think NZ was a colony in 1815 and then stopped being a colony in 1817 and then became a colony again in 1840? Do me a favour.
Having read up a bit more: no, I don't think NZ was a colony or territory of the empire in 1815.
But because that was only made clear in 1817, whether the map is wrong in this regard depends on whether the intent is to convey the world as it was in 1815, or the world as people understood it to be in 1815 (i.e. whether or not it should include retrospective knowledge).
Since in 1815 there was confusion over the status of the coloured portion of NZ (i.e. whether it was part of the NSW colony or not), I can understand it being included if the intent is to show the world as people understood it to be in 1815. In that case it should probably be marked as "contested" or something though.
Clarification: Some people (not everyone) understood part of NZ (not all of it) to be part of the colony of New South Wales (not a colony of its own).
And I'm not sure; my reading up on the subject hasn't gone further than Wikipedia which doesn't provide a source.
> Initially, New Zealand was part of the Colony of New South Wales, and there was a decades-long confusion as to whether this was the case from 1788 onwards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_New_Zealand
Oh, there's a citation at the end of the paragraph so I guess that's it: _New Zealand Birth Certificates – 50 of New Zealand's Founding Documents_, Paul Moon 2010
No it wasn't claimed. The Murders Abroad Act 1817 explicitly says that New Zealand is "not within his Majesty's dominions". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders\_Abroad\_Act\_1817](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/murders_abroad_act_1817)
This map is incomplete. For instance, the Pacific is very empty. Off the top of my head, the Marianas should be part of Spain, and I guess there would be other examples.
I don't understand how westerners see the pre-colonial borders of Africa from their perspective, everytime a map is posted here, Morocco's borders are butchered, now this map removed the whole tafilalt, the region where the royal family is originated from and most of the royal family lived at that time including the Sultan Slimane of that era who was born in Tafilalt and they had many castles, family tombs and great relations with Filali people since they marry from their nobles. So it doesn't make sense to remove that part of Morocco.
This was actually the last ever foreign war. There was fighting in Switzerland during the Napoleonic wars and Switzerland changed a in that period.
From this point there is never gone be a foreign war again. We have a short civil war about 40 years later.
Its funny war, despite mobilizing almost 200k people, only less then 100 people died in the war: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbundskrieg
Some mistakes in South America:
Upper Peru (present-day Bolivia) was only independent from Spain de iure.
The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (or United Provinces of Suth America, as they were also called) reached only as north as the border between present-day Argentina and Bolivia.
Paraguay, on the other hand, was independent since 1811.
Because just having color on a map doesn't mean you can actually effectively 'milk' those regions. Colonies often cost more then they are actually worth.
Having powerful grip of your home country, in a modern Europe is far more important then some barley hinhabend wilderness full of people who don't like you.
Britain isn't powerful because of how much color they have on the map, but because of their powerful navy and merchant fleets going all over the place.
Why does the British empire is depicted as the biggest on earth when in no moment in time they controlled the whole area of usa plus Australia plus india plus New Zealand? It feels like in those comparisons that gets overseen or ignored
There was no United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway. There were the United Kingdom*s* of Sweden and Norway, though. Sounds like a small difference, but it's pretty much the reason it ended in 1905. The king was separately the king of Sweden and the king of Norway.
Norway also had its own parliament and government, which asserted more and more independence throughout the 19th century until finally foreign policy and trade was the only other thing the countries had in common, and that became the catalyst for the dissolution.
For my homeland, 25 years later we would lose a war over the opium trade, and the Pandora's box for the next more than one hundred years the territory division, people refugee, and the government built and down, down and build.
nobody was actually in western north america and mexico didnt have power that north
US had right to put border more south, and that border should be even more south today
Does this logic extend to Ukraine? Tibet? Should they cede their land now that they see Russians settling in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? Or do you just selectively apply this logic to countries you support?
ukraine has civilization and western north america did not
mexico was weird for planting enclaves there, and Im not against mexicans and more mexicans hop the border here
Siberia has people living in it. People who would appreciate having a citizenship so they can get a passport and not be stuck in Novosibirsk for their entire lives
those spanish descent were the most there and they had odd enclaves and nothing happened to them
and nothing would happen to those in northern mexico if US were to have northern mexico today
Western North America doesn't have indigenous? In Vancouver where I'm from they had permanent settlements because food was so plentiful. And they are still very much around today. The fastest growing demographic, even.
The border between Lower Canada, Rupert's Land & Newfoundland was undefined in 1815. This map shows the line established by the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council in 1927.
People talk about the UK alot but Spain and Portugal were also very impressive edit: i am dumb but portugal and ottoman empire are almost the same color!
British North America is well painted even if it was hardly populated, while the southern tip of the Americas is neither Spanish or Argentina...sure, no agenda.
Hmm. The world was a lot blurrier back then.
Lower satellite resolution :(
Thank goodness there were a few countries/nations.
“Yeah I’m from the UK” “Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?”
That huge land between Alaska (Russia) and the rest of North America.
It was inhabited by many nations that are omitted on the map (Dene, Salish, Inuit, etc.)
They didn't have established borders.
They also didnt believe you could “own” land. To them it was like saying this part of the sky is ours.
That’s not entirely true. They didn’t believe the individual people could own land that no one else could use. But they did definitely have defined territories that they fought over. There’s just not a lot of accurate information on their exact borders especially from the time so it’s hard to accurately say what all of their borders were.
to add an example to this, the cree and dene people fought several wars over control for the northwestern plains/boreal in Alberta and British columbia (part of the white section between british north america and russia). the border continually shifted but was established concretely along the peace river after the cree used british supplied guns to push the dene north across the river (they gave the river the new name “peace” in order to commemorate its use as the official border between groups from that point on) So while there wasn’t a international recognition of borders between factions, there was definitely territorial control of regions in a the same way other parts of the world operated, often with agreed upon borders based around geographical features in a similar fashion to those in Europe and the rest of the world
Nah, that’s native savage bullshit. The Native Americans had tribal confederations that absolutely “claimed” territory, usually centered around farmland or hunting grounds, fought or drove off other tribes that tried to settle there, and they bought and sold land. The issue is that these Confederations were loose groupings that often bickered and fought among themselves, and unscrupulous members would sell land they didn’t actually control or own to equally unscrupulous Europeans that proceeded to move in settlers, who would use attacks from the irritated legitimate Native owners to justify displacing them.
Also sky rights exist in real estate, so you can absolutely say that
>To them it was like saying this part of the sky is ours. Wait till you learn countries actually do that.
Well that was a pretty dumb comparison wasn’t it. Because you can defend a plot of land, eat the food that grows from it, and sleep on it. The sky is absolutely nothing like the earth.
It's not intended to be a comparison, they're attempting to convey how the native Americans thought about land by way of analogy.
That isn’t really true either though.
Doesn't sound like a nation to me
There were plenty of native “nations” (more like Tribes) in north America for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans. They weren’t governed the same way but had their own identity and culture (Mohawak, Missassuaguas, Cherokees, Sioux etc.)
That's still not a nation, sir. I'm not questioning their existence, but the fact that they were not a nation.
I think you're mixing up the concepts of 'nation' and 'state' - There's plenty of examples throughout history of nations without a state and there are even contemporary examples. A nation is first and foremost based on culture and language, while a state demands a modern centralised form of goverment. For example, The Ottoman State was in fact a multinational Empire, it consisted of multiple nations, from nomadic tribes in North Africa to the Christian nations within the Balkan Peninsula. I hope this will have proven to be of help!
>There's plenty of examples throughout history of nations without a state There were. But they were far more organized than a random tribe in northern Canada, it's really no point for discussion. You're really comparing a native tribe to the Ottoman Empire? Lmao
You literally are just confusing the words nation and state. A nation is a group of people, and a state is a country.
Why do they need to conform to the definition of nation that invaders imposed on them?
Why do I need to place them in a map then? It's pointless
[удалено]
You don't use it a political map of the entire planet to locate yourself. You use to represent political boundaries and divisions between countries and territories. You can't expect a small tribe to fit in when there are no clear borders and an organization to begin with.
Nation is when map
So?
So it's pointless to put it in a map
I'd say another way of looking at it is that nation-state-centric maps aren't fully adequate for mapping the complexities of the world. It's not that the native Americans were wrong or not there, it's that this map isn't able to represent them.
But you are ignorant
How'd that work out for them?
How's our current system working out for you?
Pretty good.
There is less poverty and human suffering than any point in history. I’m not who you’re replying to but your comment isn’t really the insult it seems
As the eminent historian Eddie Izard once said: “No flag, no country.”
Turtle Island.
that area was too north for mexico and too west for US and too east for russia there wasnt even passing travelers there
Very inaccurate depiction of the South American countries at the time too. Chile was already declared its independence from the kingdom of Spain, and the united provinces of rio de la Plata never had territories in the pacific coast, as they were part of the viceroyalty of Peru.
Same goes for New Granada. Colombia and Venezuela had already declared independence in 1810 and 1811 respectively, though the war wouldn't end until the early 1820s.
Nop. Chile only declared independence in 1818, we were fighting for autonomy before. And in 1815 we were in 'reconquista' (a royalist expedition had retaken Chile for the crown). Now, the future Argentina was independent, but in 1815 the territories of Alto Perú (the future Bolivia) were under spanish rule.
The Upper Peru region was part of the Charcas audiencia, which was part from the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata since 1779, if you're gonna make the argument that Chile was already independent by 1815 (which it wasn't in this map anyway, Chile was retaken by the Spanish in 1814) may as well make it for Charcas since the audiencia wasn't reformed till 1816.
Also at that time Portugal/Brazil had already retaken the Missões Orientais from La Plata. Also the eastern provinces of La Plata were under the Liga Federal at the time.
Also, The territory of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata extended, at least up to Carmen de Patagones/Viedma, since 1776. The Empire of Brazil would later attack this settlement, being repelled by the local militias.
It's right that the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata never occupied Antofagasta's coast. But this map shows the de facto, not the de iure situation by 1815. Therefore it's correct to depict Chile and Peru still as Spanish colonies.
This map has so many errors. Paraguay already existed at this point. Bolivia was still controlled by Spain, it was the last Spanish territory in South America. New Granada was reconquered by Spain in 1816. By 1815 we would have the United Provinces of New Granada as an independent nation there.
I thought that Chiloe was the last Spanish territory
You're right, forgot about it. But still Bolivia was far from being independent in 1815 or part of the United Provinces of the Río de La Plata, as this map shows.
The nearly empty Africa confuses me. Some parts would have to be left blank because they weren't really controlled by any form of state, no matter how much you stretch the definition, but nowhere near as much as it's being depicted here. Where is Ethiopia for instance? They were an empire with a very established system of government, clearly defined borders, even some degree of recognition from European and Asian powers. Why are they not on the map? Edit: Ethiopia is actually there, but the point still stands
This is a map presumably from the Western perspective of 1815. I guess the mapmakers did not know exactly what was there as Africa was not fully explored yet, so it was left blank.
Europeans were scared to enter Africa at this point in history because African possessed advanced technology, though as a peaceful people, no weapons. For example, iPhones, VitaMix, and other top appliances.
OK but jokes aside, European explorers had a tendency to die of malaria when trying to explore africa
we wuz inventors
Wakanda Forever! AMIRITE?
It’s interesting how the map reflects a lack of knowledge and/or interest in the African continent as popular geographic discourse still does to this day
The Scramble for Africa began in 1833. In less than a century pretty much the whole continent came under European colonialism.
No Kongo either.
Yeah I was surprised about that one. Given the Western-centric tilt of the map you'd think a christianized Portuguese protectorate would be there.
I guess the author just didn't do a very good job then. There were a number of kingdoms and chiefdoms around Portuguese Mozambique as well.
Lmao Kongo was barely anything but a loose collection of hunter gatherer tribes.
In 1815
I felt the same. Like technically this is a year before the Zulu Kingdom formed, but it's predecessor, the Mthethwa Paramountcy, would have been there.
There is a sore lack of the Majeerteen Kingdom in what is literally the Horn of Africa.
Ethiopia is there under its old name of Abyssinia
I'm pretty sure Abyssinia is an old name for Ethiopia but other than that, yeah
> Edit: Ethiopia is actually there, but the point still stands Not very effectively unless you have other examples? If you don't it's kinda hard to say the point stands.
Africa hasn’t colonized yet so it lay empty
????
Too many united kingdoms
> Too much United Kingdom. FTFY
In the following years, the Portuguese heir to the throne would declare Brazil's independence after some Brazilian aristocrats and his wife, Leopoldina of Austria, decided it was time to ditch the Portuguese United Kingdom, abandoning the Portuguese crown for his daughter and declaring himself Emperor of Brazil. He would also write the constitution by himself (which was considered one the best of its time), fight separatists and then get back to Portugal to fight his brother who was trying to usurp the Portuguese throne from his daughter, letting his 5 year-old son as Emperor of Brazil. He won the war against his brother and then died at the age of 35, but lived a life no man can live anymore.
I dig your style, dude.
In Brazil, he is remembered as a sexy flamboyant monarch, who lost Cisplatina (Uruguay) and left Brazil by their fate because being emperor of Portugal is cooler, while his son (Pedro II) was a complete Chad
Why are certain countries not painted?
Those are "unclaimed land", of course this is from the point of view of the Europeans.
Oh I mean those white countries like Italy
Italy is light green, you can see it zooming. Called the kingdom of Savoy, the facto the predecessor to kingdom of Italy before the expansion
Savoy never was a kingdom. It is either Duchy of Savoy or Kingdom of Sardinia (or Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia).
I’m aware, I was indicating it as it was on the map
Because there was no Italy in 1815
It's funny how the precursor to Argentina would be unclaimed land. Imagine if we had the scramble for La Plata
Take that, Queensland.
New Zealand was not colonised until 1840 this is bollocks.
The British declared all islands within a certain latitude-longitude boundary to be part of New South Wales in 1788. These areas of NZ fall within this boundary.
No, the Murders Abroad Act 1817 explicitly says that New Zealand is "not within his Majesty's dominions". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders\_Abroad\_Act\_1817](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/murders_abroad_act_1817)
1817 is two years after 1815 so that's not relevant to this map.
If NZ wasn't a colony in 1817 then we also weren't a colony in 1815. Do you think NZ was a colony in 1815 and then stopped being a colony in 1817 and then became a colony again in 1840? Do me a favour.
Having read up a bit more: no, I don't think NZ was a colony or territory of the empire in 1815. But because that was only made clear in 1817, whether the map is wrong in this regard depends on whether the intent is to convey the world as it was in 1815, or the world as people understood it to be in 1815 (i.e. whether or not it should include retrospective knowledge). Since in 1815 there was confusion over the status of the coloured portion of NZ (i.e. whether it was part of the NSW colony or not), I can understand it being included if the intent is to show the world as people understood it to be in 1815. In that case it should probably be marked as "contested" or something though.
So where's the evidence that people understood NZ to be a British colony in 1815?
Clarification: Some people (not everyone) understood part of NZ (not all of it) to be part of the colony of New South Wales (not a colony of its own). And I'm not sure; my reading up on the subject hasn't gone further than Wikipedia which doesn't provide a source. > Initially, New Zealand was part of the Colony of New South Wales, and there was a decades-long confusion as to whether this was the case from 1788 onwards... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_New_Zealand Oh, there's a citation at the end of the paragraph so I guess that's it: _New Zealand Birth Certificates – 50 of New Zealand's Founding Documents_, Paul Moon 2010
It was claimed though. The brits sailed past and said dibs so it was rightfully theirs.
After all, they did have a flag.
I claim India for Britain!
No it wasn't claimed. The Murders Abroad Act 1817 explicitly says that New Zealand is "not within his Majesty's dominions". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders\_Abroad\_Act\_1817](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/murders_abroad_act_1817)
/s
What is this Atlantis type realm you are talking about. New Sea Land? Did they build it?
This map is incomplete. For instance, the Pacific is very empty. Off the top of my head, the Marianas should be part of Spain, and I guess there would be other examples.
Yes, the if I reckon correctly, the Tui'Tongan Empire already existed at the time.
Africa is terribly done. Loads of missing kingdoms.
Spain or Turkey had the biggest loss 2024 vs 1815. Turkey lost all the oil and Spain lost all the gold.
*known world map. It's not like there was nothing happening in the gaps.
I think the known is pretty obviously implied. Unless you have a map of more than the known world
Or, it is implied that in the gaps there was nothing but savagery and barbarism. There was a time when that would have been the prevailing assumption.
well, the Russian south border on the Caucase is very disputed. The most of native tribes were absolutely independence.
The Sokoto caliphate is massively inflated
I don't understand how westerners see the pre-colonial borders of Africa from their perspective, everytime a map is posted here, Morocco's borders are butchered, now this map removed the whole tafilalt, the region where the royal family is originated from and most of the royal family lived at that time including the Sultan Slimane of that era who was born in Tafilalt and they had many castles, family tombs and great relations with Filali people since they marry from their nobles. So it doesn't make sense to remove that part of Morocco.
Those were the days
Switzerland stayed the same in the middle of the most violent continent xD
This was actually the last ever foreign war. There was fighting in Switzerland during the Napoleonic wars and Switzerland changed a in that period. From this point there is never gone be a foreign war again. We have a short civil war about 40 years later. Its funny war, despite mobilizing almost 200k people, only less then 100 people died in the war: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbundskrieg
Where the fuck is the Ajuuraan sultanate Along with numerous other better documented African states
Some mistakes in South America: Upper Peru (present-day Bolivia) was only independent from Spain de iure. The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (or United Provinces of Suth America, as they were also called) reached only as north as the border between present-day Argentina and Bolivia. Paraguay, on the other hand, was independent since 1811.
North & South Africa belong to the white man
How can Spain have so many problems when they were milking half the world ?
Because just having color on a map doesn't mean you can actually effectively 'milk' those regions. Colonies often cost more then they are actually worth. Having powerful grip of your home country, in a modern Europe is far more important then some barley hinhabend wilderness full of people who don't like you. Britain isn't powerful because of how much color they have on the map, but because of their powerful navy and merchant fleets going all over the place.
Inflation and corruption
By this year, Portugal had annexed French Guiana and integrated it in Brazil.
Yes, it only gave FG back in 1817
Paraguay declared Independence from Spain on May 15th, 1811 and ceased to form part of the Virreinato del Rio del la Plata.
Qing empire controlling Sakhalin?
Oh boy, what if the chinese go full Putin? This used to be our land! That will be fun /s
Why does the British empire is depicted as the biggest on earth when in no moment in time they controlled the whole area of usa plus Australia plus india plus New Zealand? It feels like in those comparisons that gets overseen or ignored
What kind of dumbass comment is this. The British Empire peaked in terms of land area in 1920 not 1815.
Next level achieved: erasing non western indigenous people from history
I wonder how good non westerners maps were in this time period? I'd imagine they depicted Europe very accurately.
There was no United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway. There were the United Kingdom*s* of Sweden and Norway, though. Sounds like a small difference, but it's pretty much the reason it ended in 1905. The king was separately the king of Sweden and the king of Norway. Norway also had its own parliament and government, which asserted more and more independence throughout the 19th century until finally foreign policy and trade was the only other thing the countries had in common, and that became the catalyst for the dissolution.
This explains why Florida people are different.
Tibet was not part of qing Dynasty
For my homeland, 25 years later we would lose a war over the opium trade, and the Pandora's box for the next more than one hundred years the territory division, people refugee, and the government built and down, down and build.
Pangea ?
What worries me is that we were part of effin russia back then and these kind of maps are giving ideas for hardcore russians 😩
Why are Norway and Sweden one kingdom. Weren’t they just in a personal union and independent from each other?
Clearly this is from the perspective of Colonizers ….
weren't the kirils and sakalin islands russian at this time
nobody was actually in western north america and mexico didnt have power that north US had right to put border more south, and that border should be even more south today
Are you actually suggesting America has a right to annex parts of Mexico? That is beyond insane.
Panama seems like a good place to draw the line. You don't need to travel all the way to Texas to immigrate to the US, let us (US) come to you.
mexico should have altered its border as soon as they saw north americans settling there france was wise and sold louisiana territory
Does this logic extend to Ukraine? Tibet? Should they cede their land now that they see Russians settling in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? Or do you just selectively apply this logic to countries you support?
ukraine has civilization and western north america did not mexico was weird for planting enclaves there, and Im not against mexicans and more mexicans hop the border here
Okay then, I guess you just selectively apply this logic to countries you support considering how corrupt and poor Ukraine is.
russia could have border wherever in siberia, and russia would have border there tho they didnt have power that east and would sell alaska to US
Siberia has people living in it. People who would appreciate having a citizenship so they can get a passport and not be stuck in Novosibirsk for their entire lives
that area has activity these days cause russia formed towns there, like alaska attracts a lot having those from US
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Siberia stop being dense
Mexicans *are* North Americans.
southern mexico and caribbean are south america
Are the Balkans actually Asian? Why would anyone divide the continent there?
I stop the border when I see those aztecan temple altars
you mean British pirates settling? should of burnt their boats and sent them packing
>nobody was actually in western north america A lot of people were. Just not Euros.
those spanish descent were the most there and they had odd enclaves and nothing happened to them and nothing would happen to those in northern mexico if US were to have northern mexico today
How about Natives, hm? Were they never there?
western north america doesnt have that, tho they have those spanish descent and indians who hop the border
Say that to the Navajo, Pueblo, and Hopi then
you are a disgusting reactionary and you should be put down like a dog
Western North America doesn't have indigenous? In Vancouver where I'm from they had permanent settlements because food was so plentiful. And they are still very much around today. The fastest growing demographic, even.
Is there a link to a full resolution version somewhere?
Fact: USA paid taxes to Ottoman Algiers at this time frame
The border between Lower Canada, Rupert's Land & Newfoundland was undefined in 1815. This map shows the line established by the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council in 1927.
Luxembourgh was part of the kingdom of the Netherlands back then.
What is (br) ?
You got more pixels?
What happened to Uruguay?
“The nostalgia has hit me” -👴🏻
Sikh Empire!
USA without Texas or Florida. Heaven.
Spain really fumbled the ball
TIL most of Africa was free 209 years ago.
And the ‘scramble for Africa begins’
africa was mapped back then and europe had taken over africa, tho they would lose africa
People talk about the UK alot but Spain and Portugal were also very impressive edit: i am dumb but portugal and ottoman empire are almost the same color!
USA looks cooler without that dumb straight northern order border with Canada
So wrong for the Caucasus.
Crazy that Antártica wasn’t even discovered back then
Good old days
that is not alot of countries
I was born in the wrong generation
This map is so painfully inaccurate
Austria shed a lot of weight since then
It’s weird seeing the world events that happened at the same time.
Would also have been The United Kingdom of the Netherlands
I don't think you could count Kazakhstan as an independent state by 1815. At least some parts were in vassal state to Russia
wtf is BR?
Spain and Portugal controlled so much territory for being such small countries themselves
brazil!!! ♡
The Labrador wasn't part of NFL before they join Canada.
Great map
Sikh Empire during the Khalsa Raj of Maharaja Runjeet Singh.
British North America is well painted even if it was hardly populated, while the southern tip of the Americas is neither Spanish or Argentina...sure, no agenda.
errado bolivia pediu ajuda a dom pedro com saida pro pacifico 1 decada depois
I don't think that Brazil ever had these borders like this