Territorial claims and clichés on maps

[GunterW]

I never thought much about it until now, why most, if not all, of the maps for a California Republic include Baja? I know it looks good on a map, but I think any California Republic that manages to hold the current state boundaries might call itself fortunate.

Unless we have a major POD, California was an underpopulated and underdeveloped peripheral part of New Spain and Mexico. Most of the population lived close to the coast along the Camino Real. To think someone from La Paz (probably the only settlement of importance in the entire Baja south of San Diego) would suddenly feel attachment and want to join the ranchers of southern California and the Anglo miners in the north instead of other Mexicans across the Sea of Cortez is in my point of view, naïve. Mazatlán is so much closer than San Diego to La Paz and the southern tip of Baja. If it came to a fight, California won’t be able to defend or supply it as well as the Mexicans from Sinaloa and Jalisco. Baja might as well be partitioned like an island.

The story is entirely different if the US picked it up. I mean, they kind of did the same thing with Alaska. They can keep it, even if it’s empty, because they can force Mexico or anyone else to back off.

Another one is the Republic of Texas with its western border along the entire Rio Grande. It’s as much as a legal fiction as Spanish claims of over half of North America. The Republic of Texas was also very weak, scarcely populated, and bankrupt for most of its existence. The Santa Fe expedition was a disaster. The treaties of Velasco are as good as any piece of paper signed at gunpoint; they are worthless if they can’t be enforced.

The Mexicans of New Mexico were not fond of the Texans, and they never wanted to join the Republic of Texas. As mentioned earlier, it looks good on a map, it goes along with the idea of a “natural” border, but in reality, Texas could barely hold what they had without the US supporting them. I haven’t seen a TL where Texas stays more or less with what they controlled post Texas Revolution. El Paso is on the road to New Mexico that connects it to Chihuahua and to central Mexico, also called the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, it had not natural relation to San Antonio, much less Galveston.

Opening up this post for others to comment or post their ideas on other territorial cliches in maps in other parts of the world.

 

[Lalli]

USA taking Mexico or even expanding to South America

This not make any sense. USA never wanted expand to south and there was really few of political will. Americans even didn't want more Catholic Hispanics. And Mexicans are not going to just be happy being part of USA. And generally it is pretty ridicolous that USA can just annex anything what it wants without anyone resisting. If it would be that at least creation of US-led world state should be really easy.

Ottomans conquering whole Arabian Peninsula with CP victory WW1 or in world without WW1

That is saw really often. But I doubt this could be succesful. More plausible would be some puppet states. Ottomans had already lot of problems inside of their borders and they hardly would prefer taking more problems.

 

[Liminia1]

USA taking Mexico or even expanding to South America

This not make any sense. USA never wanted expand to south and there was really few of political will. Americans even didn't want more Catholic Hispanics. And Mexicans are not going to just be happy being part of USA. And generally it is pretty ridicolous that USA can just annex anything what it wants without anyone resisting. If it would be that at least creation of US-led world state should be really easy.

Ottomans conquering whole Arabian Peninsula with CP victory WW1 or in world without WW1

That is saw really often. But I doubt this could be succesful. More plausible would be some puppet states. Ottomans had already lot of problems inside of their borders and they hardly would prefer taking more problems.

The first one was genuinely realistic if you look at peace proposals sent by various figures in america during the American Mexican war arguably it was the ambassador who signed the peace from the Mexican-american war that cost America its ambitions south.
For the second one, I completely agree though

 

[Evil Crusader]

Well, honestly California has a fair bit of potential and thus probably eventually start realizing it. While a massive simplification, I don't think it's that much 'out there'.
The main cliché with AH maps is that they very commonly start as proofs of concept divorced from an actual history, or cobbled together from a wank or such, so their borders are a retro-impression of the author's modern expectations (or those we have for the period) plus narrative needs over the given land. They are made to look good and to tell a story, they are not made to be a plausible country.
And so you get the macho Roman Empires as made by X, and all the common modern irredentisms that the alt-right sometimes loves too much.
My country, Italy, has its traditional obsession over irredenta to fill, leading to random chunks of Dalmatia to be repurposed, either along the old Austrian borders or however they look good on a map. Sonnino would have liked those.

 

[Mildtryth]

The first one was genuinely realistic if you look at peace proposals sent by various figures in america during the American Mexican war arguably it was the ambassador who signed the peace from the Mexican-american war that cost America its ambitions south.
For the second one, I completely agree though

Getting the whole thing in a peace treaty is one thing.

Holding it beyond the short term is a entirely different proposition. Especially considering that something like that might end up blowing the slavery issue wide open sooner than it did OTL.

 

[material_boy]

If anyone's a member of r/imaginarymaps, they'll be extremely familiar with:

• Greece taking Constantinople after WWI
• Portugal having Galicia for no reason
• United Irish island
• Independent Brittany and/or Catalonia

 

[Beatriz]

Some

• balkanized China
• Smaller Turkey, balkanized Iraq or Syria*

*although the latter two are rarer than the former

 

[boredviewer1234]

Pashtunistan, that is Afghanistan conquering/claiming the Northern regions of the Raj, a lot of the modern land of Pakistan, including pieces of Kashmir, Baluchistan, pieces and the frontier regions.

Now this is a heated issue given Afghanistan did try to claim those areas but reality is more complex, by that even in the best moments Afghanistan would face a uphill claiming it. Mainly because while the area does have a lot of ethnic groups that are present in Afghanistan the story behind them is more complex, the Hazara present there for example fled the Iron Emir's genocide and various forms of persecution that continued afterword's for decades after him so would bear no love for becoming part of Afghanistan and given they are one of the biggest minorities in Baluchistan would present a issue in conquest. Baloch's the arguable majority in general might be willing to work with Afghanistan but this agreement would be with individual tribes and groups. You would have Baloch nationalists agitate and fight for increasing self governance to independence.

The Pashtun's present are a mix bag, but in general more than a few families fled across the border from the tyranny of the government and rather than happy Afghan partisans best think of them as a heavily divided more focused on their local interests and problems which may align with Afghanistan at the time can shift.

Then of course you have the fact that Iran also wants the region, in fact tried to do a landgrab in 1971 but backed down under US pressure, in a timeline were Afghanistan is trying to expand I feel you might see Iran try to grab a piece of the pie and they are a lot stronger than Afghanistan.

Frontier region which has more Pashtuns than Afghanistan might be a different matter but that in itself is a major problem what they want is more than likely different than what Afghanistan wants, Peshawar was once the capital of the Duraani empire, if it did become Afghan why would it would bow to Kabul who sold them? Basically rather than a normal Afghanistan taking this region should radically alter the nation as a new centre of power emerges in the nation as the region is more populated and richer than the capital.

Even then though varies the Turi tribe for example being Shiite definitely don't have the best memories of the Monarchy while say the Mehsud have a long history of defiance against any authority imposing on them. Then of course we have the history of Pakistan's founding were all the tribes collectively decided they would be apart of the state, provided they kept their autonomy and just as imporant the subsidies the British used to help keep them quiet continued flowing. Afghanistan which is poorer will certainly face a difficult challenge here.

Kashmir though I think actually is very possible, been a long time since Afghan rulers had gone and more importantly the Kingdom of Kashmir was quite oppressive in the Baltistan region so local support for a invasion against British raj and their local proxy has definite chance of existing though it's one of the more patriotic regions in Pakistan.

I don't mean to say it's impossible for Afghanistan to gain at least some land but think gaining all of it is extremely unlikely even if the Raj and Pakistan are collapsing because the population themselves have a vote and their conditions for joining Afghanistan I don't think will be respected and frankly not sure Afghanistan would pursue all the land than say a limited land grab of the most pro separatists voices and try to integrate it.

 

[skycloud86]

Space filling empires
*Insert random country here* Congo

 

[DJ03]

*Insert random country here* Congo

congolese Congo xP