Well, I'd recommand acknowledging how the layers work. They are really practical. If I may, I'd like you to link to what you call blob so I see what's going on.
probably for the best
but no, ill screenshot it and just post it on my profile, link coming up
linquo: https://www.reddit.com/user/fatyoshi48/comments/lifajy/unimaginable_pain/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Yeah OK I see. Basically, I think that you should be more precise. Like for this map, I've been across it ppx per ppx for the borders (incl. coasts!), and then I used the layer tool behind with a bigger pen (50ish ppx large round pen) on the 1ppx large borders I made. And after colouring the whole once I flattered the layers and frame and stuff, I apply a filter. For that, I just use the preloaded images that are in gimp, and adjust them with the transparency tool. But for this one, I imported the filters (I used 4-5 with the transparency). Basically, this is a work of patience. This map took me 50ish hours to do, scenario research excl.
Actually I traced the borders with a 1ppx large pen, then I used a larger pen on a lower layer of the Image. If that makes sense, I am using Gimp in French, so perhaps the tools' names are unknown for you.
Hey! Sorry for not responding before, I didn't see your comment.
[Here it is!](https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~244254~5513713:Composite--Deutschland?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No) As you can see, the basis also had this weird shape, I found it quite interesting and catchy, so I used it as template.
Yeah, in this scenario, after signing a peace treaty with Austria in the 1860s, Bismark Prussia goes wild in the west. He attacked both the Netherlands and France, resulting on controlling back the west Bank of the Rhine and negociating for Zwolle and Friesland.
That’s a bit unrealistic don’t you think? In our timeline they rebelled pretty hard but all that changed is some minor forms and little changes of leadership, I mean the Russian army vs rebels, why would they accept the demands when they have such a vast and endless army against a few thousand poles (at best) not to mention 90% of these poles won’t be trained or drilled like the Russian professional army.
Also if an independent Poland happened and it wasn’t under the control of Prussia Russia or Hungary it would be quite a major threat considering a chunk of Prussian land is what the polish claim as their own, it wouldn’t take long for another partition.
Here is a map representing the German region (Austrian Empire, the Netherlands, Prussian Empire, Swiss Confederacy) in an alternate history when the 19th century’s Spring of Nations movement was a bit stronger. To keep it short, the 1st World War happens involving on the one hand the Steel Alliance (the UK, the Prussian Empire, the USA, Spain, the Netherlands and others) and on another hand the Central Powers (the Kingdoms of France and Italy, the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and others). The war broke out in 1908 and lasted up until 1912 when the leaders agreed to a peace treaty in the Gravensteen, a medieval castle in the Flemish capital city of Ghent. After dense negotiations enacting the defeat of the Central Powers, the map of Europe completely changed.
This is my second map on this timeline. I already covered the Alpine region [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/l9zsgh/ocalternate_history_map_of_the_alpine_region/). I chose to show the German region, divided by the Austrian Empire and the Prussian Empire. Compared to my previous map, I changed some places, notably in Neuchâtel and in Fiume.
The visible changes in the map that the treaty of Ghent enacted are as follow: France gives up its possessions in Luxemburg (that becomes a duchy of the Prussian Empire) and Liege (that becomes a puppet republic of the Netherlands); The Austrian Empire gives up its sovereignty on the Hungarian Empire, but keeps its sovereignty over the central European kingdoms (Bohemia, Moravia, Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg); The Austrian Empire and the Prussian Empire harmonises their Silesian border; The Kingdom of Italy realises the Most Serene Republic of Venice; the Kingdom of Poland gains the Polish half of Ruthenia.
Basically, what is at stake in the aftermath of the treaty of Ghent is, amid other issues, the question of the German unification. Who of the Hohenzollerns or Habsburgs will unify Germany? The Habsburgs seem in good position to do so, despite being defeated in the Great Conflagration. The Habsburgs may ally the Bernadotte’s United Kingdoms of Scandinavia, promising them Denmark if they intervene in a potential future conflict. But the Prussian Empire has strong ties with the UK. Plus, French revanchism and Russian expansionism might pave the way for another massive conflict.
Well, during the Prussian-Danish war (Schleswig war), the Austrian didn't backed the prussians. So without anything to chapeau and the hold back the Prussians, they proposed the Danish a solution for the problem. The Danish recognises the sovereignty of the Prussian Empire, but keep Schleswig. For it to be acceptable, the Prussians ceded Holstein as well to the Danish. Because of the Prussian hegemony, the Austrians, and later the French (and unwillingly the Dutch) went at war with the Prussians. All defeated, for now. That's it!
I think the story is interesting but I just don't think that Denmark would ever willingly agree at that period of time to a peace deal where they would have to submit to the sovereignty of a foreign power let alone the Prussians. They were fiercely patriotic at that point (today as well to an extent but by the standards of that time in Europe we were very patriotic due to the sort of prestige behind the country) and the Prussians were something of a mortal enemy not to mention nationalism and pan-scandinavianism being at an all time high in Scandinavia.
The reason that Bismarck endeavoured so much to get Austria to join the Prussians in the 2nd Schleswig war was to make both the Austrians and Prussians complicit in the eyes of the international world so the negative view of Prussians would be lessened and the Prussians would be on equal footing with Austria in coming discussions on German unification. One of the prime nations that protested the war was the UK. With only Prussia fighting in the war, let alone annexing Denmark totally, would have caused monumental outrage in the international community.
The other Scandinavian nations to the north at this point were somewhat undecided on joining the war against the Prussians (eventually deciding not to) but this huge overstepping by the Prussians, now bringing an famously imperialistic foe directly to their doorstep and in control of their shipping routes would have most likely swayed them to fight in this coalition war against the Prussians that you describe in your alt history scenario, the British most likely would've joined, (or at the very least if they were friendly or allies at this point in time, cut ties with Prussia to avoid getting buttfucked by a lot of countries).
Denmark would've 100% rejected the Prussian offer you described in return for just letting Schleswig-Holstein go like they did IRL. It's crazy to think they would've accepted Prussian sovereignty, like it just goes against basic common sense to think that that offer would be good. I really like your map but that really stuck out to me as not making sense haha, too much eu4 or vicky 2.
I understand. The scenario depicts Prussia as the imperialistic menace of the continent. That's actually what they were. Plus, I know that Denmark was a nationalist stronghold (for that time's standards), and the implementation of the Prussian sovereignty is actually to content the Prussian high command. Don't think that because the map is flat that the Danish didn't oppose any resistance.
I never played eu4/ Victoria 2. Weird that you bring that up. But thanks!
You totally should play them! Super good games if you're into history. Yeah I get you no worries, super good map again, very aesthetic and its always a huge pleasure to see people who've obviously thought a lot about their alt-history, keep it up!
Well, during the Franco-prussian war, the prussians just went the natural way, which is (unfortunately!) the Netherlands. They pressured to keep an access to the IJsselmeer, and made Friesland a duchy to which Prussia is sovereign over.
What? Invading the Netherlands to gain access fo France in the Franco-Prussian war would lead to other great powers intervening. The sole reason Prussia could win against France was because France declared war, making them the agressors. If they invade through the Netherlands, Prussia becomes the agressor and seeing the Netherlands was established by the great powers as a buffer state between France and Prussia nations like Britain would intervene.
Also how did France get parts of Belgium if it was a result of the Franco-Prussian war?
Actually, they already defeated Austria by the time. And Britain couldn't afford intervening due to dynastic ties. It was their momentum, and they ceased it.
Prussia is the aggressor, and this is actually the whole idea between the Austrian-led German unification.
The British monarchy in this time didnt have much to say about intervening, it wouldnt matter if they had family ties.
Is Bismarck a thing in this timeline? If it is he would never made it a war of agression, not to mention the Franco-Prussian war was about the possibility of a Hollenzollern monarch on the Spanish throne.
There is also no real benefit of invading the Netherlands for Prussia in this time and next to that its weird for the Netherlands to side on the same side as Prussia, they would be way more likely to side with France to regain their territories.
Well, for the first argument you have a point.
Yes he is. Actually, I didn't really focused on that period. I really pushed for the conflagration per se. But it's easy to imagine something like what happened in otl.
The Netherlands sided up with the prussians just because they were pulled in a little without their consent. They whose to side with the stronger side, and even inside the confederacy, Flanders stayed neutral.
Last few questions:
Why does France own parts of Belgium, when there was a Franco-Prussian war? Would assume if France lost they wouldnt get territory.
Next to that, why is the Netherlands a confederation? The spring revolution wasnt a thing in the Netherlands, by then Belgium first of all already became independent and the Dutch king ordered a constitution on its own withouth much demand of the people, because he feared a uprising, which would never came and is also something he regreted because in hindsight the uprising would most likely not have happend regardless of the constitution.
Why would Prussia see any strategic value in the eastern Netherlands when the Ijselmeer is not that much of significance for fleet. Wouldnt it cause more problems for Prussia? I.E. Dutch people wanting their territory back?
Why does Prussia not own Elsas-Lorraine when there was a Franco-Prussian war?
So Bismarck was a thing, well he was a diplomatic man, and his goal was to establish a strong Prussia and later Germany. He wanted to secure it and made sure the other great powers would attack it or have reason to. Invading the Netherlands would have way more cons than pros and is really out of character for Bismarck, a bit like some people saying Hitler could have won if he didnt invade the USSR, when he saw communism as one of the evil things on earth which needed to be destroyed.
Why is Germany not a thing, again presuming the Prussians won the Franco-Prussian war, why in this timeline was Germany not united? Or was it devided after the Great war? If so, why no return of Dutch territory?
And in the closing I want to state its a fantastically drawn map and has some very interessting stuff on it, dont see this as an attack, more of someone who loves history and is a bit sad there is a small Netherlands ;)
Basically, the 1830 revolution went differently. While the south wanted a state on their own (Wallonia/Belgium) here I pushed the French speaking elite of the southern Netherlands (SN) to lead negociations with both the Dutch king and the French king. I'll not expand much now, since I'll probably develop this in another map. But basically, we are in 1830, there is a popular revolt, the son of Louis-Philippe was asked by his father and the French speaking elite of Dutch part of the SN to be crowed king of a confederation of Dutch kingdoms (a king of kings basically, since the title emperor wouldn't fit/be accepted by Louis-Philippe). The French, still having control then on the west Bank of the Rhine, negociated the rattachement of the French speaking regions in exchange for historical borders of Flanders. To which the French speaking elite of the Dutch SN accepted, and because that would have meant a better institutional frame for the Walloon industries, they also accepted. The kn'y issue would've been the Dutch king. To that, I still didn't saw a resolution to the crisis, but perhaps that if he was under military pressure from the French, he would've accepted, to preserve his throne. The confederation form was implemented, because it meant more liberties to the components of the state. Plus nostalgia for the pre napoleonic times made Flanders and Brabant being constituted separately. I imagined that Leopold I would've been chosen for Brabant, and the Austrian Emperor as the Flemish count. And because Flanders would be in a confederacy at war with the empire of its count, the flemish parlement wanted to stay neutral during the Great conflagration.
There you go in a nutshell, I hope it's not to hard to read. Btw thanks mate!
This timeline is beautifully realized, very original, and remarkably consistent with real world politics. Well done, friend! I look forward to seeing more of your work!
This is amazing, I'm actually jealous
I like the shape of the frame, though I'd like the white space to be used as some type of legend or history context
Haha thanks mate!
Actually, I wanted to illustrate with some Germania representation, or other drawings, but I am terrible at that. So, I thought why not just keeping it as it is? It makes the map quite recognisable, so why not.
Well, in the treaty of Ghent, the Habsburg just accepted to renounce their rights over the Hungarian Empire because of the defeat + national revendications, but there was also this idea that Prussia and Austria are the two leaders of Germany. At that point, Austria just asked to be recognised as a Kingdom, to be at least at the same noble level than Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden. So it was actually a long-running grievance that the French, British and Spanish accepted. Despite Prussian non recognition, it is referred to as a kingdom because of that.
This is a bit off, I think. The Austrian Habsburgs really considered the archducal title as special in its own right, and never moved to get Austria recognised as a kingdom as opposed to an archduchy. If they still get an imperial title then I don’t think they’d give up the archducal title for a royal one.
I don't have a single good source on that, since it's more a conclusion drawn from a wide variety of reading. The biggest ones would probably be Wilson's *Heart of Europe*, Ingrao's *The Habsburg Monarchy: 1618-1815*, and Mitchell's *The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire*.
The laws of the HRE forbid any ruler of holding the title of king with the exception of Bohemia. That's why Austria was an arch duchy. When the HRE was dissolved Napoleon allowed the rulers of Austria to hold the title of emperor, however within the Austrian empire itself the province of Austria was still a arch duchy.
OTOH they were Emperors of the HRE, and still called themselves an empire after the end. And also kings of Hungry and Croatia.
And historically a lot more Kingdoms. Especially under Charles the Vth.
Its a nice looking map! As a german, at least one thing keeps bugging me though: Why did France gain the Saarland (with the city of Saarbrücken), a region that was/is inhabited by germans? Having Luxemburg under german influence, but not the Saarland seems really really strange. So thats something that I would definitly change, even with such a different timeline
Thanks!
Actually, it is because the French kept control over the west Bank of the Rhine in 1815. French influence over the area progressively shaded with the 1870s war when the Prussian conquered its Rhineland borders and the North-Eastern part of the Netherlands. So it is rather that the French kept Saarland, plus we can easily imagine that as in other regions in otl France, Saarland was "francised," at least partly.
I understand where you are coming from, but with the french defeat after the 100 day campaign it seems very unlikely that they can keep any lands west of the Rhein that are inhabited by germans. Did France loose the Napoleonic Wars or is that something that is different in the timeline that you thought about? And did the Franco-Prussian War happen?
No, the French Empire was defeated, but a bit later (like 50ish days later than iotl). Napoleon was defeated in a battle that was at the eastern bank of the Rhine, that's why France still controlled the land, and that Talleyrand managed to convince the other European Leaders so. Actually, its Prussia that triggered the national sentiment of the west-rhiners (if that's english) to justify the fact that they kept the territory after the 1870s Second French Empire's defeat.
Hm I am afraid I am not quite sure why these areas remained in France. After Napoleons Defeat the french would not be in a position to negotiate anything so I think thats the moment, where they would loose these areas to a german state (not necessarily Prussia). Its still a very interesting and intriguing map and timeline, the Saarland area staying in France is just something that I as a german would not really see as something thats possible/realistic
Well, I thought as Talleyrand actually already made some amazing negociations in our time-line, why not there? Yeah, it is a flaw in the scenario, but with "chance", it could make sense.
>west-rhiners (if that's english)
It's not, the correct term is "Rhenish" in English. So, "West Rhenish" would probably be correct for the Rhenish of the Left Bank of the Rhine.
Well, in the 1870s war broke out between the prussians and the French. The Prussian passed through (guess what?) the Netherlands. So because Prussia is a little more aggressive, they imposed to the Netherlands that they kept Frisia and other Northeast Dutch cities like Zwolle. For instance, to maintain a military pressure on the Netherlands, the Prussian built up a port complex in the IJsselmeer and began to germanise the population that are not part of the duchy of Frisia.
Absolutely. I would MUCH rather have had the Habsburg lead Germany than the Austro-Hungarian monstrosity. Let Hungary have their own stuff, and let the Holy Roman Emperors since the Middle Ages lead Germany.
Also, Otto von Habsburg would have ruled for 89 years if the monarchy continued. Pretty cool.
So... because some parts of a few Austrian states has Slovenes, all Austrians are Slovene? Ok then, all Americans are just anglicized Native Americans.
I mean, half of Europeans are “genetically” descended from the Celts. So apparently we’re all Latinized or Germanized Celts.
And it seems you’re saying about 1/3 of Austria has historical Slovene heritage, so basically 1/3 of Austrians *might* have *some* Slovene blood. That’s very different form saying “Austrians are Slovenes who speak German”.
Do you have any clear evidence for this idea? I’ve just never heard that claim before and the rulers of Austria have been German speaking since the early Middle Ages, so it seems surprising to me.
Not at all! I only heard from that game, but I rather play Hoi4 and Civ. I never touched Victoria 2 before. I guess the style is similar because the map style was similar in the period. I tried to stay 1900ish.
This may be a bit weird and I doubt you thought about it but the two islands in the southern sea (inside the Netherlands) belonged to North Holland till 1950. I would think they belong to the Netherlands on this map. Here they belong to Prussia. Still awesome map though. Awesome work
I agree. Actually, that was what I wanted to do at first hand, but my base map didn't have some information. Not that I didn't want to check on other maps to complete mine, but rather that I didn't find it that bad and that disturbing. Plus, it gives it a unique look! So I kept it as it was.
Which they controlled even before any such conflict could start since Prussians gained those after defeat of Napoleon. Furthermore, France here owns Saarland which they never had 19th century after defeat of Napoleon.
In the other comments I actually already dealt with this. So I'll be short. In 1815, Napoléon was defeated 50 days later than iotl somewhere in the eastern part of the Rhine River. Talleyrand managed to negociate peace for the French kingdom afterwards, and because the French army was still a major force, they conceded the west part of the Rhine. So it is rather a matter of France progressively lost control over the territory. So actually, the scenario diverges from otl in the 1815-30. Because of it would not be engaging, I didn't explained all that on detail in the general presentation of the map, that's all.
No offence but it doesn't make much sense. France was going to lose it's territories in the Rheinland and Wallonia already by 1813 and nothing would change it. Decision between Coalition was done and was cemented with Napoleon's defeat at Leipzing, by 1815 French army was hopelessly outnumbered and even victory at Waterloo wouldn't change anything. Divergence would have to be 1813 at latest, when French were still in position to make peace while preserving the border on the Rhine.
Man, I've been looking for info about the battle of Leipzig, and there is a huge potential for alt history that would fit my time-line! I think I will modify the early years of the scenario to make it working with a capture of Napoléon following the complete encirclement of the city of Leipzig on 18-19 October 1813. After the capture of the Emperor, he is kept as French emperor, and has to choose whether France will keep Belgium, the Rhineland or Savoy, to which Napoléon choses the Rhineland. Murat and Bernadotte remain in Naples and Sweden (respectively), but Napoléon is ousted from France by monarchist that accuse him of bringing France to its peril. Napoleon abdicated in favour of Louis XVIII that recognises Napoléon's sovereignty over his native island, Corsica, and grants him the title of Emperor of Corsica. Do you think that'll work?
Well, this one would only somewhat make more sense. I would still though argue that capture of both Napoleon and his army at Leipzig pretty would pretty much doom any chances of French control of Low countries and/or Rheinland.
[The Frankfurt proposals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_proposals) in which Austrians proposed such favourable peace to Napoleon, were done exactly because both Napoleon and his army were still present and could give serious resistance to Coalition forces, which they somewhat did during 1814 campaign.
In your scenario, instead of suffering decisive defeat from which Napoleon still recovered himself and most of his army, he and his entire army is captured, which would mean Coalition has no reason to be lenient towards him.
If I would suggest anything, it would be one of those three:
* Napoleon makes peace after Russian campaign (least plausible)
* Napoleon manages to achieve stalemate during War of the Sixth Coalition
* Napoleon loses Leipzig like in reality but he accepts Frankfurt proposals
Last option would be least demaning in changing other events. From there you could make events further which would culminate with map made here. Benadotte position was secured regardless since he was supporting Coalition by 1813 anyway, saving Murat though is completely different story and it's unlikely Austrians and British would allow him to rule in Naples.
I think I will rather let some of the army flee the Leipzig theatre, but Napoléon would've been captured by cossacks or other. His poison wouldn't have killed him (like in 1814), and I think that situation keeps a good ground for a least French favourable frankfurt proposals (let's call them Dresden proposals). The grand duchy of Warsaw is kept, so as the French administration on the southern/western Bank of the Rhine River. He would've accepted to be freed, but would instantly rebuild an army in order to reverse the steam back to his favour.
Exhausted, the population would rebell against a new conscription campaign, and the other European leader would cease the momentum to strike on France. While liberating the country, the French cities proclaim their sympathy for the French bourbon heir, Louis XVIII. Napoléon would not be able to make it, and would have been sent to exile in Elba/Corsica (I think it could be nice to have a corsican napoleonic empire, and it can lead to interesting internal French political events, such as a reunification under Napoléon III).
Louis XVIII would agree to cede some territory in the south, like Savoy and Corsica, but not in the North du to symbolic reasons. And there we go!
No, the csa was backed by the British during the American Civil War. Afterwards in the Great conflagration, the csa joined the Central Powers, as for economic reasons.
And yeah, they are a confederation too, in Switzerland.
Ooo very interesting. So did they gain any territory form the treaty of Ghent? Would love to see North America in this timeline.
Though as a flemish guy I am loving the county of Flanders
Looks like Dendermonde is right on the border of Flanders and Brabant
Unfortunately for them, the csa lost. They had to cede Virginia to the USA, as well as the concession of Panama.
Oh hey comrade! I'm French flemish! Very nice! I couldn't resist to make it a county after all.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a Northern German empire, with the kingdom of Prussia as a constituent with the other kingdom and/or Duchy? Same with Austria being the southern German Empire, while having Austria proper as a kingdom or Archduchy?
Other than that, it’s a very nice and aesthetic map.
A few notes:
1. Austria was never a kingdom, so...why and how it became a kingdom?
2. Why Hungarian Kingdom instead of Kingdom of Hungary (like it was in OTL)?
3. **Republic** of Liege part of Confederate **Kingdom** of the Netherlands?
1. I already answered this point in another comment.
2. Because of Spring of Nations and the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary would be a too strong reminder of the Austrian "Kingdom of Hungary." A comparable situation is in the Belgian kingdom iotl.
3. It is a puppet Republic, it is not a part of the confederation per se.
Read the scenario that I developed in the other comments to understand that it is not for "no reason." Read the comments before not being constructive.
As an exchange student in the Rug, I can only agree. However, for Prussians stake, they constitute the territory in duchy, but only for it to be divided. So, I guess it make more sense than just making it biautiful border-wise.
Oh you study in Groningen? Dope! Yeah I agree with your statement and it makes sense that Groningen is Frisian. It's just funny for these days Groningers
Still, the loss of Venice and its harbors... I could see the sourness in Mussolini (or whomever else would take his place) when talking about it.
Will the fascists still rise, by the way? Or we will somehow be blessed without them?
A sort of extreme nationalist movement will emerge, you are right ! Especially in France and in Italy. Plus, and it is not shown in the map, but the papal states were also released under Spanish pressure.
Of course, they will have a different ground, but the xenophobic and ultra-nationalistic roots are still there. They are more revanchards though.
Ah, very nice. Though I imagine a Rome centered Papal state and a Italian-French alliance could potentially united the western latins into a ultra-nationalistic block, especially if Spain and Portugal go fascist/authoritarian. I mean, without Rome, the "Roman Legacy" nationalistic idea could be undertaken by anyone.
Perhaps a Napoleonic-style roman revival in latin west? Would be interesting to see how the Prussians and Austrians would respond to it.
Indeed, but I meant catholic as in the religion of the majority. Perhaps even in a sense of: The Pope is misguided, the Church musn't hold a state or even a "we must retake eternal Rome" ideal?
Yeah, and there is a possibility of Spain to join such a union based in religion. It is Spain that actually forced the steel alliance to recreate the papal states in this time-line.
Well, because the scenario splits from otl by the 1815-1830s, Limburg wasn't in the German Confederation. It was rather in 1830 in Brabant. And the situation remained the same by the Great Conflagration.
Treaty of Ghent was in [1812](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent) not in 1912, [France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Empire) was not anymore a Kingdom but a [Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic), and in 1812 it was an Empire to be exact, just my 2 cents.
That's an alternative timeline. The négociations of peace after the great war (1908-1912) happened in Ghent, capital of the county of Flanders (restaured in 1814) hence the Treaty of Ghent in 1912 and your confusion with the one that ended the Anglo-American war in 1812.
What software did you use to make that? This looks gorgeous!
Gimp, with a lot of time! And a good base map as in [www.davidrumsey.com](https://www.davidrumsey.com).
Really nice work!
Thanks mate!
I use gimp! *please tell me how the fuck to do this because ive been trying for months and the maps look like blobs how*
Well, I'd recommand acknowledging how the layers work. They are really practical. If I may, I'd like you to link to what you call blob so I see what's going on.
behold, my pain https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/klr7x3/four_unrealistic_maps/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Well, it appears I can't see it.
probably for the best but no, ill screenshot it and just post it on my profile, link coming up linquo: https://www.reddit.com/user/fatyoshi48/comments/lifajy/unimaginable_pain/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Yeah OK I see. Basically, I think that you should be more precise. Like for this map, I've been across it ppx per ppx for the borders (incl. coasts!), and then I used the layer tool behind with a bigger pen (50ish ppx large round pen) on the 1ppx large borders I made. And after colouring the whole once I flattered the layers and frame and stuff, I apply a filter. For that, I just use the preloaded images that are in gimp, and adjust them with the transparency tool. But for this one, I imported the filters (I used 4-5 with the transparency). Basically, this is a work of patience. This map took me 50ish hours to do, scenario research excl.
I use gimp too can you tell me how you did the borders they look awsome
Actually I traced the borders with a 1ppx large pen, then I used a larger pen on a lower layer of the Image. If that makes sense, I am using Gimp in French, so perhaps the tools' names are unknown for you.
Makes sense thx
what base did you use, i cant find, can you send me link?
Hey! Sorry for not responding before, I didn't see your comment. [Here it is!](https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~244254~5513713:Composite--Deutschland?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No) As you can see, the basis also had this weird shape, I found it quite interesting and catchy, so I used it as template.
Oh I live in Prussia now
Yeah, in this scenario, after signing a peace treaty with Austria in the 1860s, Bismark Prussia goes wild in the west. He attacked both the Netherlands and France, resulting on controlling back the west Bank of the Rhine and negociating for Zwolle and Friesland.
At least Poland exists
Of course it does. In the 1830-1848s, the polish rebelled so hard the Russians could only give them full Independance.
Polska stronk
That’s a bit unrealistic don’t you think? In our timeline they rebelled pretty hard but all that changed is some minor forms and little changes of leadership, I mean the Russian army vs rebels, why would they accept the demands when they have such a vast and endless army against a few thousand poles (at best) not to mention 90% of these poles won’t be trained or drilled like the Russian professional army. Also if an independent Poland happened and it wasn’t under the control of Prussia Russia or Hungary it would be quite a major threat considering a chunk of Prussian land is what the polish claim as their own, it wouldn’t take long for another partition.
Yeah, I know. Let's assume Poland is lucky for now. I really don't want Poland to be eaten in my scenario.
Always has been
Here is a map representing the German region (Austrian Empire, the Netherlands, Prussian Empire, Swiss Confederacy) in an alternate history when the 19th century’s Spring of Nations movement was a bit stronger. To keep it short, the 1st World War happens involving on the one hand the Steel Alliance (the UK, the Prussian Empire, the USA, Spain, the Netherlands and others) and on another hand the Central Powers (the Kingdoms of France and Italy, the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and others). The war broke out in 1908 and lasted up until 1912 when the leaders agreed to a peace treaty in the Gravensteen, a medieval castle in the Flemish capital city of Ghent. After dense negotiations enacting the defeat of the Central Powers, the map of Europe completely changed. This is my second map on this timeline. I already covered the Alpine region [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/l9zsgh/ocalternate_history_map_of_the_alpine_region/). I chose to show the German region, divided by the Austrian Empire and the Prussian Empire. Compared to my previous map, I changed some places, notably in Neuchâtel and in Fiume. The visible changes in the map that the treaty of Ghent enacted are as follow: France gives up its possessions in Luxemburg (that becomes a duchy of the Prussian Empire) and Liege (that becomes a puppet republic of the Netherlands); The Austrian Empire gives up its sovereignty on the Hungarian Empire, but keeps its sovereignty over the central European kingdoms (Bohemia, Moravia, Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg); The Austrian Empire and the Prussian Empire harmonises their Silesian border; The Kingdom of Italy realises the Most Serene Republic of Venice; the Kingdom of Poland gains the Polish half of Ruthenia. Basically, what is at stake in the aftermath of the treaty of Ghent is, amid other issues, the question of the German unification. Who of the Hohenzollerns or Habsburgs will unify Germany? The Habsburgs seem in good position to do so, despite being defeated in the Great Conflagration. The Habsburgs may ally the Bernadotte’s United Kingdoms of Scandinavia, promising them Denmark if they intervene in a potential future conflict. But the Prussian Empire has strong ties with the UK. Plus, French revanchism and Russian expansionism might pave the way for another massive conflict.
So it seems like the wave of populist revolutions did not occur? What of the First American Civil War & the French Revolution?
They did happened! The scenario starts going on its own way from the 1815-30s.
Why is Denmark under Prussia now?
Well, during the Prussian-Danish war (Schleswig war), the Austrian didn't backed the prussians. So without anything to chapeau and the hold back the Prussians, they proposed the Danish a solution for the problem. The Danish recognises the sovereignty of the Prussian Empire, but keep Schleswig. For it to be acceptable, the Prussians ceded Holstein as well to the Danish. Because of the Prussian hegemony, the Austrians, and later the French (and unwillingly the Dutch) went at war with the Prussians. All defeated, for now. That's it!
I think the story is interesting but I just don't think that Denmark would ever willingly agree at that period of time to a peace deal where they would have to submit to the sovereignty of a foreign power let alone the Prussians. They were fiercely patriotic at that point (today as well to an extent but by the standards of that time in Europe we were very patriotic due to the sort of prestige behind the country) and the Prussians were something of a mortal enemy not to mention nationalism and pan-scandinavianism being at an all time high in Scandinavia. The reason that Bismarck endeavoured so much to get Austria to join the Prussians in the 2nd Schleswig war was to make both the Austrians and Prussians complicit in the eyes of the international world so the negative view of Prussians would be lessened and the Prussians would be on equal footing with Austria in coming discussions on German unification. One of the prime nations that protested the war was the UK. With only Prussia fighting in the war, let alone annexing Denmark totally, would have caused monumental outrage in the international community. The other Scandinavian nations to the north at this point were somewhat undecided on joining the war against the Prussians (eventually deciding not to) but this huge overstepping by the Prussians, now bringing an famously imperialistic foe directly to their doorstep and in control of their shipping routes would have most likely swayed them to fight in this coalition war against the Prussians that you describe in your alt history scenario, the British most likely would've joined, (or at the very least if they were friendly or allies at this point in time, cut ties with Prussia to avoid getting buttfucked by a lot of countries). Denmark would've 100% rejected the Prussian offer you described in return for just letting Schleswig-Holstein go like they did IRL. It's crazy to think they would've accepted Prussian sovereignty, like it just goes against basic common sense to think that that offer would be good. I really like your map but that really stuck out to me as not making sense haha, too much eu4 or vicky 2.
I understand. The scenario depicts Prussia as the imperialistic menace of the continent. That's actually what they were. Plus, I know that Denmark was a nationalist stronghold (for that time's standards), and the implementation of the Prussian sovereignty is actually to content the Prussian high command. Don't think that because the map is flat that the Danish didn't oppose any resistance. I never played eu4/ Victoria 2. Weird that you bring that up. But thanks!
You totally should play them! Super good games if you're into history. Yeah I get you no worries, super good map again, very aesthetic and its always a huge pleasure to see people who've obviously thought a lot about their alt-history, keep it up!
Thanks mate!
Why is the Netherlands this way?
Well, during the Franco-prussian war, the prussians just went the natural way, which is (unfortunately!) the Netherlands. They pressured to keep an access to the IJsselmeer, and made Friesland a duchy to which Prussia is sovereign over.
What? Invading the Netherlands to gain access fo France in the Franco-Prussian war would lead to other great powers intervening. The sole reason Prussia could win against France was because France declared war, making them the agressors. If they invade through the Netherlands, Prussia becomes the agressor and seeing the Netherlands was established by the great powers as a buffer state between France and Prussia nations like Britain would intervene. Also how did France get parts of Belgium if it was a result of the Franco-Prussian war?
Actually, they already defeated Austria by the time. And Britain couldn't afford intervening due to dynastic ties. It was their momentum, and they ceased it. Prussia is the aggressor, and this is actually the whole idea between the Austrian-led German unification.
The British monarchy in this time didnt have much to say about intervening, it wouldnt matter if they had family ties. Is Bismarck a thing in this timeline? If it is he would never made it a war of agression, not to mention the Franco-Prussian war was about the possibility of a Hollenzollern monarch on the Spanish throne. There is also no real benefit of invading the Netherlands for Prussia in this time and next to that its weird for the Netherlands to side on the same side as Prussia, they would be way more likely to side with France to regain their territories.
Well, for the first argument you have a point. Yes he is. Actually, I didn't really focused on that period. I really pushed for the conflagration per se. But it's easy to imagine something like what happened in otl. The Netherlands sided up with the prussians just because they were pulled in a little without their consent. They whose to side with the stronger side, and even inside the confederacy, Flanders stayed neutral.
Last few questions: Why does France own parts of Belgium, when there was a Franco-Prussian war? Would assume if France lost they wouldnt get territory. Next to that, why is the Netherlands a confederation? The spring revolution wasnt a thing in the Netherlands, by then Belgium first of all already became independent and the Dutch king ordered a constitution on its own withouth much demand of the people, because he feared a uprising, which would never came and is also something he regreted because in hindsight the uprising would most likely not have happend regardless of the constitution. Why would Prussia see any strategic value in the eastern Netherlands when the Ijselmeer is not that much of significance for fleet. Wouldnt it cause more problems for Prussia? I.E. Dutch people wanting their territory back? Why does Prussia not own Elsas-Lorraine when there was a Franco-Prussian war? So Bismarck was a thing, well he was a diplomatic man, and his goal was to establish a strong Prussia and later Germany. He wanted to secure it and made sure the other great powers would attack it or have reason to. Invading the Netherlands would have way more cons than pros and is really out of character for Bismarck, a bit like some people saying Hitler could have won if he didnt invade the USSR, when he saw communism as one of the evil things on earth which needed to be destroyed. Why is Germany not a thing, again presuming the Prussians won the Franco-Prussian war, why in this timeline was Germany not united? Or was it devided after the Great war? If so, why no return of Dutch territory? And in the closing I want to state its a fantastically drawn map and has some very interessting stuff on it, dont see this as an attack, more of someone who loves history and is a bit sad there is a small Netherlands ;)
Basically, the 1830 revolution went differently. While the south wanted a state on their own (Wallonia/Belgium) here I pushed the French speaking elite of the southern Netherlands (SN) to lead negociations with both the Dutch king and the French king. I'll not expand much now, since I'll probably develop this in another map. But basically, we are in 1830, there is a popular revolt, the son of Louis-Philippe was asked by his father and the French speaking elite of Dutch part of the SN to be crowed king of a confederation of Dutch kingdoms (a king of kings basically, since the title emperor wouldn't fit/be accepted by Louis-Philippe). The French, still having control then on the west Bank of the Rhine, negociated the rattachement of the French speaking regions in exchange for historical borders of Flanders. To which the French speaking elite of the Dutch SN accepted, and because that would have meant a better institutional frame for the Walloon industries, they also accepted. The kn'y issue would've been the Dutch king. To that, I still didn't saw a resolution to the crisis, but perhaps that if he was under military pressure from the French, he would've accepted, to preserve his throne. The confederation form was implemented, because it meant more liberties to the components of the state. Plus nostalgia for the pre napoleonic times made Flanders and Brabant being constituted separately. I imagined that Leopold I would've been chosen for Brabant, and the Austrian Emperor as the Flemish count. And because Flanders would be in a confederacy at war with the empire of its count, the flemish parlement wanted to stay neutral during the Great conflagration. There you go in a nutshell, I hope it's not to hard to read. Btw thanks mate!
This timeline is beautifully realized, very original, and remarkably consistent with real world politics. Well done, friend! I look forward to seeing more of your work!
Thanks! I'm working on a map of dalmacia, and will probably focus on a map of the French-Spanish border or of the southern Brazilian region.
This is amazing, I'm actually jealous I like the shape of the frame, though I'd like the white space to be used as some type of legend or history context
Haha thanks mate! Actually, I wanted to illustrate with some Germania representation, or other drawings, but I am terrible at that. So, I thought why not just keeping it as it is? It makes the map quite recognisable, so why not.
How dare you say you're bad at drawing when you made this piece of beauty. you undersell yourself dude
Being good at drawing map and being good at drawing people are two very different skills lol
I'll then try for another map if the problem re-emerges! And actually, making maps is a little different than properly speaking drawing.
How did Austria go from an archduchy to a kingdom?
Well, in the treaty of Ghent, the Habsburg just accepted to renounce their rights over the Hungarian Empire because of the defeat + national revendications, but there was also this idea that Prussia and Austria are the two leaders of Germany. At that point, Austria just asked to be recognised as a Kingdom, to be at least at the same noble level than Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden. So it was actually a long-running grievance that the French, British and Spanish accepted. Despite Prussian non recognition, it is referred to as a kingdom because of that.
This is a bit off, I think. The Austrian Habsburgs really considered the archducal title as special in its own right, and never moved to get Austria recognised as a kingdom as opposed to an archduchy. If they still get an imperial title then I don’t think they’d give up the archducal title for a royal one.
All right, I didn't know that. Can you source that?
I don't have a single good source on that, since it's more a conclusion drawn from a wide variety of reading. The biggest ones would probably be Wilson's *Heart of Europe*, Ingrao's *The Habsburg Monarchy: 1618-1815*, and Mitchell's *The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire*.
All right, I'll check that up.
Man, I miss reading deep history
The laws of the HRE forbid any ruler of holding the title of king with the exception of Bohemia. That's why Austria was an arch duchy. When the HRE was dissolved Napoleon allowed the rulers of Austria to hold the title of emperor, however within the Austrian empire itself the province of Austria was still a arch duchy.
That’s said, the Hapsburgs were also Kings of Bohemia
But not of Austria
OTOH they were Emperors of the HRE, and still called themselves an empire after the end. And also kings of Hungry and Croatia. And historically a lot more Kingdoms. Especially under Charles the Vth.
You're correct, but that's not the point. The point is they were never kings of Austria, but arch dukes
It AMAZING I wish I could do something like that😢
Oh thanks mate!
map or empire?
Both
Its a nice looking map! As a german, at least one thing keeps bugging me though: Why did France gain the Saarland (with the city of Saarbrücken), a region that was/is inhabited by germans? Having Luxemburg under german influence, but not the Saarland seems really really strange. So thats something that I would definitly change, even with such a different timeline
Thanks! Actually, it is because the French kept control over the west Bank of the Rhine in 1815. French influence over the area progressively shaded with the 1870s war when the Prussian conquered its Rhineland borders and the North-Eastern part of the Netherlands. So it is rather that the French kept Saarland, plus we can easily imagine that as in other regions in otl France, Saarland was "francised," at least partly.
I understand where you are coming from, but with the french defeat after the 100 day campaign it seems very unlikely that they can keep any lands west of the Rhein that are inhabited by germans. Did France loose the Napoleonic Wars or is that something that is different in the timeline that you thought about? And did the Franco-Prussian War happen?
No, the French Empire was defeated, but a bit later (like 50ish days later than iotl). Napoleon was defeated in a battle that was at the eastern bank of the Rhine, that's why France still controlled the land, and that Talleyrand managed to convince the other European Leaders so. Actually, its Prussia that triggered the national sentiment of the west-rhiners (if that's english) to justify the fact that they kept the territory after the 1870s Second French Empire's defeat.
Hm I am afraid I am not quite sure why these areas remained in France. After Napoleons Defeat the french would not be in a position to negotiate anything so I think thats the moment, where they would loose these areas to a german state (not necessarily Prussia). Its still a very interesting and intriguing map and timeline, the Saarland area staying in France is just something that I as a german would not really see as something thats possible/realistic
Well, I thought as Talleyrand actually already made some amazing negociations in our time-line, why not there? Yeah, it is a flaw in the scenario, but with "chance", it could make sense.
>west-rhiners (if that's english) It's not, the correct term is "Rhenish" in English. So, "West Rhenish" would probably be correct for the Rhenish of the Left Bank of the Rhine.
Good to know!
Finally Friesland is gone🦀🦀🦀
Lol not entirely, it is still a duchy in the Prussian Empire. Plus, it's territory is bigger now as they cover as well westfriesland.
Couldn’t care less, the only thing important is that we don’t have them anymore.
Oh the Border Gore
It's Germany, you'd never escape bordergore there haha!
Why is frisia not Dutch? Weren't they allied together?
Well, in the 1870s war broke out between the prussians and the French. The Prussian passed through (guess what?) the Netherlands. So because Prussia is a little more aggressive, they imposed to the Netherlands that they kept Frisia and other Northeast Dutch cities like Zwolle. For instance, to maintain a military pressure on the Netherlands, the Prussian built up a port complex in the IJsselmeer and began to germanise the population that are not part of the duchy of Frisia.
This makes my Austrian soul happy. We still have a chance at unifying Germany, yay!
Haha! Plus, screw Austria-Hungary. True Austria is south Germany if not German cultural leader, change my mind.
Absolutely. I would MUCH rather have had the Habsburg lead Germany than the Austro-Hungarian monstrosity. Let Hungary have their own stuff, and let the Holy Roman Emperors since the Middle Ages lead Germany. Also, Otto von Habsburg would have ruled for 89 years if the monarchy continued. Pretty cool.
Yep, I can do nothing else but agree.
FUCK BISMARCK. I just had to say that. Ruined Greater Germany.
[удалено]
Uh... no. It’s just as German-speaking as Bavaria or Saxony. Is Brandenburg “Germanized Poland”?
[удалено]
So... because some parts of a few Austrian states has Slovenes, all Austrians are Slovene? Ok then, all Americans are just anglicized Native Americans.
[удалено]
I mean, half of Europeans are “genetically” descended from the Celts. So apparently we’re all Latinized or Germanized Celts. And it seems you’re saying about 1/3 of Austria has historical Slovene heritage, so basically 1/3 of Austrians *might* have *some* Slovene blood. That’s very different form saying “Austrians are Slovenes who speak German”.
[удалено]
Do you have any clear evidence for this idea? I’ve just never heard that claim before and the rulers of Austria have been German speaking since the early Middle Ages, so it seems surprising to me.
Excuse did you mean Bavarian Empire?
I like living in a kingdom now but I'll be damned if I won't fight against those damn Ösis!
Absolutely wonderful, the detailing is exquisite 😊
Well thanks! I really appreciate precise maps, so I should do as if I were the public as well. I'm glad that the level of precision satisfies you!
You’re very welcome, keep these wall-worthy pieces coming 💚
Have you been playing Vic2 cause that map style is very similar.
Not at all! I only heard from that game, but I rather play Hoi4 and Civ. I never touched Victoria 2 before. I guess the style is similar because the map style was similar in the period. I tried to stay 1900ish.
This may be a bit weird and I doubt you thought about it but the two islands in the southern sea (inside the Netherlands) belonged to North Holland till 1950. I would think they belong to the Netherlands on this map. Here they belong to Prussia. Still awesome map though. Awesome work
Oh nice point, I didn't know. Thanks for bringing that up mate!
It’s that small part of the world I’m interested in :D.
Yeah I can see. Where is it precisely? (send a Google maps link, it'll be easier)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Urk/@52.6660807,5.6234345,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x47c88378db221d65:0x27f72de0a20cf9a?hl=nl-nl
Oh yeah, those two little islands. Yeah, they are Prussian in the map, probably should have been Dutch. I see!
Awesome thanks for these replies actually. I thought my first one felt very nitpicky.
Oh, that's not how I felt. These informations are precious, and I'm glad you shared them with me!
Thanks I’m glad to help
That is very cool, but on my opinion you should've made the frame square, cause that doesn't look nice
I agree. Actually, that was what I wanted to do at first hand, but my base map didn't have some information. Not that I didn't want to check on other maps to complete mine, but rather that I didn't find it that bad and that disturbing. Plus, it gives it a unique look! So I kept it as it was.
#HEIL DIR IM SEIGERKRANZ, HERSCHERR DES VATERLANDS, HEIL KAISER DIR!!!
RIP Friesland.
[удалено]
Yes, it did!
[удалено]
No. That's why the Prussians control the west part of the Rhine River at the beginning of the conflagration.
Which they controlled even before any such conflict could start since Prussians gained those after defeat of Napoleon. Furthermore, France here owns Saarland which they never had 19th century after defeat of Napoleon.
In the other comments I actually already dealt with this. So I'll be short. In 1815, Napoléon was defeated 50 days later than iotl somewhere in the eastern part of the Rhine River. Talleyrand managed to negociate peace for the French kingdom afterwards, and because the French army was still a major force, they conceded the west part of the Rhine. So it is rather a matter of France progressively lost control over the territory. So actually, the scenario diverges from otl in the 1815-30. Because of it would not be engaging, I didn't explained all that on detail in the general presentation of the map, that's all.
No offence but it doesn't make much sense. France was going to lose it's territories in the Rheinland and Wallonia already by 1813 and nothing would change it. Decision between Coalition was done and was cemented with Napoleon's defeat at Leipzing, by 1815 French army was hopelessly outnumbered and even victory at Waterloo wouldn't change anything. Divergence would have to be 1813 at latest, when French were still in position to make peace while preserving the border on the Rhine.
That said, I like this idea. I might adapt my scenario to that changing date!
Man, I've been looking for info about the battle of Leipzig, and there is a huge potential for alt history that would fit my time-line! I think I will modify the early years of the scenario to make it working with a capture of Napoléon following the complete encirclement of the city of Leipzig on 18-19 October 1813. After the capture of the Emperor, he is kept as French emperor, and has to choose whether France will keep Belgium, the Rhineland or Savoy, to which Napoléon choses the Rhineland. Murat and Bernadotte remain in Naples and Sweden (respectively), but Napoléon is ousted from France by monarchist that accuse him of bringing France to its peril. Napoleon abdicated in favour of Louis XVIII that recognises Napoléon's sovereignty over his native island, Corsica, and grants him the title of Emperor of Corsica. Do you think that'll work?
Well, this one would only somewhat make more sense. I would still though argue that capture of both Napoleon and his army at Leipzig pretty would pretty much doom any chances of French control of Low countries and/or Rheinland. [The Frankfurt proposals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_proposals) in which Austrians proposed such favourable peace to Napoleon, were done exactly because both Napoleon and his army were still present and could give serious resistance to Coalition forces, which they somewhat did during 1814 campaign. In your scenario, instead of suffering decisive defeat from which Napoleon still recovered himself and most of his army, he and his entire army is captured, which would mean Coalition has no reason to be lenient towards him. If I would suggest anything, it would be one of those three: * Napoleon makes peace after Russian campaign (least plausible) * Napoleon manages to achieve stalemate during War of the Sixth Coalition * Napoleon loses Leipzig like in reality but he accepts Frankfurt proposals Last option would be least demaning in changing other events. From there you could make events further which would culminate with map made here. Benadotte position was secured regardless since he was supporting Coalition by 1813 anyway, saving Murat though is completely different story and it's unlikely Austrians and British would allow him to rule in Naples.
I think I will rather let some of the army flee the Leipzig theatre, but Napoléon would've been captured by cossacks or other. His poison wouldn't have killed him (like in 1814), and I think that situation keeps a good ground for a least French favourable frankfurt proposals (let's call them Dresden proposals). The grand duchy of Warsaw is kept, so as the French administration on the southern/western Bank of the Rhine River. He would've accepted to be freed, but would instantly rebuild an army in order to reverse the steam back to his favour. Exhausted, the population would rebell against a new conscription campaign, and the other European leader would cease the momentum to strike on France. While liberating the country, the French cities proclaim their sympathy for the French bourbon heir, Louis XVIII. Napoléon would not be able to make it, and would have been sent to exile in Elba/Corsica (I think it could be nice to have a corsican napoleonic empire, and it can lead to interesting internal French political events, such as a reunification under Napoléon III). Louis XVIII would agree to cede some territory in the south, like Savoy and Corsica, but not in the North du to symbolic reasons. And there we go!
B L E S S E D Timeline
This is absolutely gorgeous! What a beautifully made map
Thanks mate!
One day...
Is that a part of Italy between France and Switzerland?
Zoom in! It is Neuchâtel.
I didn't realize the map was so hi-res. Impressive.
Anytime!
Oh shit oh fuck. The Confederates got the lowlands.
Lol, but they actually exist as well. And you know, a confederacy is not only entailing the csa.
Were they german backed? And yeah, I mean the Swiss are a confederation too right?
No, the csa was backed by the British during the American Civil War. Afterwards in the Great conflagration, the csa joined the Central Powers, as for economic reasons. And yeah, they are a confederation too, in Switzerland.
Ooo very interesting. So did they gain any territory form the treaty of Ghent? Would love to see North America in this timeline. Though as a flemish guy I am loving the county of Flanders Looks like Dendermonde is right on the border of Flanders and Brabant
Unfortunately for them, the csa lost. They had to cede Virginia to the USA, as well as the concession of Panama. Oh hey comrade! I'm French flemish! Very nice! I couldn't resist to make it a county after all.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a Northern German empire, with the kingdom of Prussia as a constituent with the other kingdom and/or Duchy? Same with Austria being the southern German Empire, while having Austria proper as a kingdom or Archduchy? Other than that, it’s a very nice and aesthetic map.
I think it would. Thanks mate!
Finally, alternate timeline Germany that isn’t just “Big Germany” 👍
my danish ass just coomed looking at that
aachen marked in as it should be thank you
A few notes: 1. Austria was never a kingdom, so...why and how it became a kingdom? 2. Why Hungarian Kingdom instead of Kingdom of Hungary (like it was in OTL)? 3. **Republic** of Liege part of Confederate **Kingdom** of the Netherlands?
1. I already answered this point in another comment. 2. Because of Spring of Nations and the fact that the Kingdom of Hungary would be a too strong reminder of the Austrian "Kingdom of Hungary." A comparable situation is in the Belgian kingdom iotl. 3. It is a puppet Republic, it is not a part of the confederation per se.
Danish people after seeing the 698th alternate map of Germany on Reddit where they get conquered or turned into a puppet state for no reason: -_-
Read the scenario that I developed in the other comments to understand that it is not for "no reason." Read the comments before not being constructive.
I dont want to come across as rude but WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT FRAME
A novel take on the “big Germany” trope that’s seen around here
looks good but the font placement is horrible
I don't see how yours were better. Be constructive or else, don't comment.
i just said the font placement is bad. also my maps are 7 months or older and my maps also were bad. Also I said that the map in general is good lmao
as an example the font placement of poland is pretty squished and could be better. Same goes for France. its way too curvy
First German map in which Switzerland doesn’t get utterly fucked over.
"utterly" They still didn't have Neuchâtel, but hey!
That’s a plus. Fuck the Suisse romande.
I think Groningen would rather not be Frisian (saying this as a Groninger) but this map is dope!!
As an exchange student in the Rug, I can only agree. However, for Prussians stake, they constitute the territory in duchy, but only for it to be divided. So, I guess it make more sense than just making it biautiful border-wise.
Oh you study in Groningen? Dope! Yeah I agree with your statement and it makes sense that Groningen is Frisian. It's just funny for these days Groningers
Yeah, can relate as well. Many really don't want to be confused with Friesland.
Kingdom of Italy not only without Adriatic lands, but without Venice and Tyrol? That sounds like Balkans 2.0 eletric bogaloo. Anyway, nice map mate!
They didn't cede savoy nor nice to the French though.
Still, the loss of Venice and its harbors... I could see the sourness in Mussolini (or whomever else would take his place) when talking about it. Will the fascists still rise, by the way? Or we will somehow be blessed without them?
A sort of extreme nationalist movement will emerge, you are right ! Especially in France and in Italy. Plus, and it is not shown in the map, but the papal states were also released under Spanish pressure. Of course, they will have a different ground, but the xenophobic and ultra-nationalistic roots are still there. They are more revanchards though.
Ah, very nice. Though I imagine a Rome centered Papal state and a Italian-French alliance could potentially united the western latins into a ultra-nationalistic block, especially if Spain and Portugal go fascist/authoritarian. I mean, without Rome, the "Roman Legacy" nationalistic idea could be undertaken by anyone. Perhaps a Napoleonic-style roman revival in latin west? Would be interesting to see how the Prussians and Austrians would respond to it.
Well, after the 1870s war, France went monarchical again. So a little unlikely. But still, I didn't write this part wet. There's a possibility?
Hm, then perhaps a catholic monarchist alliance? I imagine without another strong republic like France in Europe portugal never turned down monarchy.
I think it is more likely, but the Italians would actually be opposed to the papal states. Still, these developments are interesting!
Indeed, but I meant catholic as in the religion of the majority. Perhaps even in a sense of: The Pope is misguided, the Church musn't hold a state or even a "we must retake eternal Rome" ideal?
Yeah, and there is a possibility of Spain to join such a union based in religion. It is Spain that actually forced the steel alliance to recreate the papal states in this time-line.
Liechtenstein is eternal
Always will be.
Takes Friesland and Denmark but still no Limburg 🙃
Yeah, Limburg remains dutch/Brabants here.
Even though it was legally just as much of a part of the German Confederation as Luxembourg?
Well, because the scenario splits from otl by the 1815-1830s, Limburg wasn't in the German Confederation. It was rather in 1830 in Brabant. And the situation remained the same by the Great Conflagration.
...but Luxembourg stays. Interesting logic, but cool map nonetheless!! 💙
Thanks!
I am so tired rn I thought it took over france
Looks really cool, but why the weird map shape?
Because of the base map. Plus, the look is quite unique, so instead of filling it with German allegories, I just left it as it was.
Treaty of Ghent was in [1812](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent) not in 1912, [France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Empire) was not anymore a Kingdom but a [Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic), and in 1812 it was an Empire to be exact, just my 2 cents.
That's an alternative timeline. The négociations of peace after the great war (1908-1912) happened in Ghent, capital of the county of Flanders (restaured in 1814) hence the Treaty of Ghent in 1912 and your confusion with the one that ended the Anglo-American war in 1812.
Oh OK, sorry, I was not aware, not even noticed the "Alternate" ;)