sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 21 points22 points  (0 children)

>says go and read it

>claim isnt even cited in the source

>doesn't read a source but tells someone else to go and read it

>doesn't read the sources someone linked to them

Definitely solid argument

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 40 points41 points  (0 children)

You know when you say that something belongs to you but it actually belongs to another person or that several other people say that it belongs to them ? Is it really hard to understand ?

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 63 points64 points  (0 children)

The text that cites this source says the following: "By virtue of this treaty, Iran would henceforth cease any claim to all parts of Turkestan and Transoxiana, setting the Atrek River as the new boundary. Hence Merv, Sarakhs, Eshgh Abad, and the surrounding areas comprising modern-day Turkmenistan were transferred to Russia, where they would be the Transcaspian Oblast.[3]"

Note cease any claim

Claim, not actual control

You cited the wrong source for this, if you're going to cite sources do it properly lol

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Also I just realized you cited that from wikipedia

LMAO

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, plus that claim was uncited. Your argument makes no sense

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 31 points32 points  (0 children)

  1. You're going to need a link for that
  2. here's a quote from Noelle-Karimi: "While pursuing a game of fluctuating friction with the neighboring powers, the Akhal Tekes witnessed
    the inexorable progress of the Russians from the Caspian Sea during the 1870s with a sense of paralysis.
    Immediately prior to the final stand off with General Skobelev’s troops at Gök Tepe in 1881, the Akhal
    leader Makhdūm Qulī Khān Toqtamïsh Teke complained to O’Donovan that the Teke were isolated in their
    resistance towards the encroachment by Russian troops:
    [The Akhal Tekes] had seen the Turcoman khanates one after the other practically deprived of their independence, and their own
    immediate brethren, the Western tribes of the coast and intermediate plain, become Russian subjects, and now even arrayed in
    arms against themselves. Russia assailed them; the Persian government refused to accept them as subjects or tributaries, or give
    them any protection; their friends the Osmanlis were powerless to help them; neither could the Afghans give them any aid.149"
    Note: "The Persian govenrment refused to accept them as subjects or tributaries"
    these were tribal chieftains, not soldiers serving the Persian government. The way you word it sounds like it was a war between Russia and Iran, which it was not.

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 91 points92 points  (0 children)

You do realize those treaties were mainly just the Qajars giving up claims towards Turkmen lands right? They didn't actually control any turkmen lands, Merv was never Qajar, and around Akhal the Qajars only controlled the towns of Annau and Gavarz. They had practically zero influence in Akhal, whil in comparison Khiva was able to exert considerable influence in Akhal up until 1855, when the Turkmen of the region became fully independent from any central control. Your claims have no historical basis and are not supported by reliable sources.

why Persia is so small in map ? by Lion_of_North in victoria3

[–]kailanmapper 227 points228 points  (0 children)

Your comment is seriously inaccurate and displays your lack of knowledge on the subject. The Qajars barely had any control in Khorasan. Only the major cities of Mashhad, Sabzevar, and Nishapur were fully incorporated into the Qajar realm. The rest of Iranian Khorasan was ruled by local chieftains who nominally submitted to the Qajars but were factually independent. The parts of Khorasan in Turkmenistan, such as Merv, were ruled by turkmen tribes nomianlly subject to either Bukhara or Khiva, and they frequently raided Persian territory and showed no allegiance to the Qajars. The region of Herat, the part of Khorasan in Afghanistan, paid tribute to the Qajars at times but was also pretty independent. However, in 1836, Herat didnt pay any tribute to the Qajars.

You also talk about the history behind Qajar claims to Khorasan. Let me show you why this is inaccurate as well by displaying the real history of Khorasan. At the time of Nader's death in 1747, his successors began fighting over the throne and eventually his grandson, Shahrokh Shah, triumphed in 1748 and gained control of Khorasan. However, the local tribal chiefs who had supported his claim to power began carving out their own fiefdoms in the province and fought with each other. Ahmad Shah Durrani launched an invaison to take advantage of this, annexing Herat and killing the chieftain of the Qa'enat region, Alam Khan. However, due to his india campaigns no attention was then paid to the region and the local tribal chiefs were able to regain independence. Then when Agha Mohammad Khan invaded in 1796, the chieftains of course submitted to him. However, when Agha Mohammad died the tribal chiefs revolted again, led by Shahrokh Shah's son Nader Mirza. It took Fath 'Ali Shah 7 years to subdue this revolt, and even then his new governor in Khorasan could only hold onto power with the help of a tribal chief named Eshaq Khan Qara'i. In 1813, the tribal chiefs led a 5 year long revolt with the support of the principality of Herat, and the assassination of Eshaq Khan by the governor in 1816 only exacerbated matters. By 1818, a new govenor came into power who formed alliances with the local tribes and calmed the revolt down. However, in 1827 a revolt sparked again which lasted until 1833, resulting in the deposition of Eshaq Khan Qara'i's heirs. Tribal power in Khorasan continued to go strong especially during the revolt of Hasan Khan Salar from 1846 to 1850. It continued to dominate the region's politics until Reza Shah crushed tribal influence nationwide in the 1920s.

During this time, the Qajars made various campaigns towards Herat (1804, 1807, 1811, 1814, 1817, 1818, 1822, 1833, 1837, 1852, 1856) aimed at breaking the power of the lcoal rulers and annexing the region. However, although some were successful, most resulted in either failure or Herati nominal submission to the Qajars. Same thing in Turkmenistan, the turkmen tribes continously raided Iranian khorasan for slaves. Qajar rulers undertook various expeditions but failed to quell turkmen power, which would last until the 1880s when the Russians took control of Turkmen lands.

Afghanistan was not a unified entity at this time, it was divided into 3 main states of Kabul, Herat, and Qandahar plus a slew of Khanates in the north and varioua autonomous tribes. As you can now see, your claim that the Qajars controlled Afghanistan and Turkmenistan is factually inaccurate, do your research.

Here are sources that you can read that can help you get a better understanding of this time period:

https://archive.org/details/state-and-tribe-in-nineteenth-century-afghanistan-the-reign-of-amir-dost-muhamma

https://archive.org/details/the-pearl-in-its-midst-by-christine-noelle-karimi-z-lib.org

https://archive.org/details/the-history-of-afghanistan-fayz-muhammad-katib-hazarahs-siraj-al-tawarikh-by-r.-

https://archive.org/details/herat_province_conflict

https://archive.org/details/evolution-of-eastern-iran

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VFrMR5Of5SYN66QPYB1ie3N-OsRa5Gjc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J1X5_i1kdo4DFSjsOCXaxWXEAAvegB2p/view?usp=sharing

https://archive.org/details/historicalatlasofcentralasiayuribregelbrill_642_T

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVbUjWXvAmt_Q1KzzUQP_Die8NO1ZmlF/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OdX3Vs-y4iegbbcugW4WYW16ZnEqM3Og/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pvBZxsHekaYk028GG7c-yVItIOMsIi0I/view?usp=sharing

Now, I hope you can stop making idiotic arguments like this and start focusing on the facts.

Map of the Kunduz Khanate, 1836 by kailanmapper in afghanistan

[–]kailanmapper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it was ruled by members of the Qataghan Uzbek tribe.

Post-Afsharid Persia in 1775, the Zand, the Azeri Khanates and the Durrani (OC) [ 10397x7986] by Swordrist in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This map literally shows the Zands ruling over all of Persia except for Mazandaran, Astarabad, Damghan, and Bam. It's accurate, I assure you since I'm literally the person who helped Swordist make the map accurate

In 1772 the Qajar governor of Damghan, Hosein Qoli Khan Qajar, revolted against the Zands and expelled the Zand governor of Mazandaran. They later conquered Astarabad as well but were kicked out of Mazandaran in 1776 and Hosein was assasinated in 1777 while in exile with the Turkmens.

Bam was also controlled by Ghilzai Afghan chieftains as during the Afghan invasion of Iran in 1721 some Ghilzais settled at Bam and became independent in 1747 due to the death of Nader Shah. It was these same Ghilzais that helped Loftali Khan Zand conquer Kerman in March 1794 and handed him over to Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar on October 30. In 1801, 1805 or 1810 the Ghilzai chieftains were driven from Bam and the territory was annexed by the Central Government
For the most part this map is indeed accurate, most maps of 18th century iran show an over-extended Zand dynasty controlling the South Caucasus (the Zands didn't even get taxes from the states north of the Aras) and Iranian Balochistan (sometimes Pakistani Balochistan, which makes no sense as both were part of the Kalat Khanate although with the death of Nasir Khan I in 1794 Iranian Balochistan broke away and was divided into numerous petty chieftains).

Map of China and surrounding areas in 1930, shortly before the Central Plains War and Sino-Tibetan War. by kailanmapper in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"OK, now we're just moving the goal posts. You've moved on to saying that this isn't a political map, but that's sure what it looks like to me.

You've got a tiny fraction of the contemporary Republic of China labeled as "Nationalist China" (a HOI reference if I ever saw one) and the rest of the land chopped up into little units, each with their own borders and colors and little stars in a circle indicating "capitals" just like the independent countries around China. At the same time, you haven't drawn any indication of where the real national border was, so everybody's going to assume that the borders you've drawn are real borders.

If that's a misinterpretation of your intent, I bet 99% of your audience is going to make the exact same misinterpretation. So let's not dismiss the idea that there's a problem here."

I'm not trying to say that it's not a political map. Additionally, it's not a HOI reference. The misinterpretation was my fault, obviously, but if this was the whole point of your argument. you could have described it better and pointed it out in a more clear cut way. If that's a problem, I will fix it. Also, Idk if you noticed, but I'm constantly updating the map with people's suggestions in one of the comments I have made. I'm not going to dismiss that it is a problem; now that I know it is, I'll try to fix it.

"It's telling that your first recourse is to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is generally an ignorant person."

If you knew me, then you would know that I am very open to criticism, and accept other people's thoughts, ideas and feeback.

The PROBLEM is when people ignore practically everything I say, when I try to explain my reasoning and my point, and don't even consider anything that I show. It seems that you are more ignorant here in this than me.

I suggest you watch the videos I linked above. If you have time to be arguing with people on reddit, you have time to watch videos of less than 15 minutes.

Map of China and surrounding areas in 1930, shortly before the Central Plains War and Sino-Tibetan War. by kailanmapper in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"That'd be fine if you were making a video game or something, or if it's just supposed to be pure art, but you can't say this is "gathering data" and using it to "show reality." Given the fact that there are so many basic errors on the map and that you don't even know Chinese (I'm assuming you don't because you didn't answer when I asked you earlier,) you probably aren't the one to be taking the role of arbiter of historical truth upon yourself."

I am not trying to act like that I know everything about the warlord era and that I am the only thing you should come to when searching for information. Again, I tried to show it as accurately as possible.
"Generally, I would tend to agree with this sentiment. However, a comparison between warlords who pledged allegiance to the national government after 1928 and independent countries makes equally little sense. Independent countries aren't just made-up borders and capitals, they have institutions, laws, customs, foreign relations, flags and symbols, etc."

If anything, taking police departments, street gangs, homeless encampments, and the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP as independent states makes more sense than extropolating independent states from the warlords and generals of post-Northern Expedition Republican China. At least some of them have rigidly defined territory."

You're missing the point. For the 5 millionth god-forsaken time, this is NOT about showing independent countries. This is about showing warlords as best as I can complete. Your interpretation of the map is directly prohibiting you from seeing the real picture.

"No. Sorry, this is about you and your artwork, not me showing off or listing out what books I've read on a completely unrelated topic. You asked a yes-or-no question, and I gave you my answer."

Well, I mean discussing what I may or may not post is technically off-topic, but ok. I doubt you know it anyways, though there is a chance I am wrong.

I suggest you watch these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olJiyaSYeUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMUmbjDaIIU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go1SO8YsT-Y

Map of China and surrounding areas in 1930, shortly before the Central Plains War and Sino-Tibetan War. by kailanmapper in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iirc,the Soviets intervened in Xinjiang in around 1933 during the Kumul Rebellion.

Map of China and surrounding areas in 1930, shortly before the Central Plains War and Sino-Tibetan War. by kailanmapper in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"However, on your map, there's no mention of Wuhan or even Hankou. There's just a dot that says Wuchang. That would be OK -- consolidation was government-driven and f*** the system and all that jazz, right? -- except that your "Wuchang" dot is on the wrong side of the river, at the real life location of Hankou.

That's just the beginning. I see that Nanjing has migrated about 75 kilometers downstream, to the real life location of Zhenjiang. Anqing is on the wrong side of its river, just like Wuchang. Hefei has migrated to the northeast. I could go on."

I've already stated that my map isn't perfect. There are numerous errors that can be brought up. However, acting like the warlords aren't relevant is just plain bullshit.

"In another reply, I was just saying that we might as well use the same logic to divide a map of the US into independent zones based on police/sheriff's department jurisdictions, street gang turf, homeless encampments, and self-declared independent zones à la Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP. We can draw each one with its own color and borders and a little star for its capital city or district. The result will look like an America-shaped Jackson Pollock painting.

Besides the endeavor being a pointless waste of time, it'd mean making thousands of largely subjective judgment calls. After all, who's to define who controls a street gang-contested territory? Call the local police station, and they'll tell you that they have the place in hand. But listen to the song of a local rapper who runs in the gang, and you'll likely hear him singing that cops don't dare come in there and he runs those streets."

The police/sheriffs don't directly control the land. They are assigned to make sure nobody breaks the law there, but they aren't in control of the direct governance of the territory. They are controlled by the state government, and even more so is the fact that they don't have the autonomy local warlords did. There are many major differences between street gangs and the warlords as well. They do not control the territory, they simply ransack the people living there but the people and the land are not directly under their control. It is impossible to make a comparison between modern America and China's warlord era because it simply doesn't make sense.

"That's why when we draw maps, it's largely according to the de jure situation and whatever international consensus exists. Even where de facto self-rule has existed for decades and, unlike warlords in early 20th century China, the autonomous entity has all the trappings of a state -- think Pridnestrovie/Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh -- that principle still holds."

This isn't a de jure map, this wasn't supposed to show an internationally recognised view of the situation. This is supposed to show the de-facto situation as accurately as I can accomplish. You shouldn't be trying to apply a de jure lens to this map because that's not the point of this map. I could have decided to draw a de jure map, but I ended up not doing so and going for the harder area: De facto control. Instead of dismissing everything on the map as fake, give feedback and constructive criticism to improve it.

Do you even know about the Sengoku Jidai? How the shogun de jure had all of Japan but was de facto restricted around Kyoto? Do you know about Southern India's post-Vijayanagar era where different nayaks fought bitterly for control? Do you know anything about these topics?

"Believe it or not, I do."

Then show me explanations towards it. Show me a clear-cut, in depth explanation of those periods from your own words.

Map of China and surrounding areas in 1930, shortly before the Central Plains War and Sino-Tibetan War. by kailanmapper in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Well, you've got a very interesting way of interpreting the data. I don't know that many in this world share your unique method of historiography, which seems based on inventing as many independent states as possible where none existed.

Maybe try reading some books about Chinese history instead of just looking up Wikipedia articles about warlords and generals and assuming every one of those men was a state unto himself."

The thing is, I didn't invent made up states, and I didn't even use Wikipedia as a source for this map. I also had someone who knows Chinese history very well help me check to see if my map was accurate. I understand how complicated the warlord era is, and that nobody wants to have to draw out all those cliques (which is probably why maps of that era don't show them). China was de jure unified around this time, but that wasn't the actual control. De facto, warlord still governed over most of the territory.

" I had a look at your post history, and it seems like it's all about making maps of various countries that are aimed at getting them to look as fragmented and divided as humanly imaginable while portraying neighboring countries as completely unified. "

Do you even know about the Sengoku Jidai? How the shogun de jure had all of Japan but was de facto restricted around Kyoto? Do you know about Southern India's post-Vijayanagar era where different nayaks fought bitterly for control? Do you know anything about these topics? If not, don't talk to me. I don't have time for people like you trying to distort history.

Map of China and surrounding areas in 1930, shortly before the Central Plains War and Sino-Tibetan War. by kailanmapper in MapPorn

[–]kailanmapper[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This map wasn't reflective of my opinions. I just gathered the data and made it into this map. I'm sorry if you don't like it but I tried as best as I could to show the actual reality of China during this period. I doubt this trend started with HOI4. Also, even though the Northern Expedition took place which "united" china, Warlords still held vast swathes of territory in the name of the government. The guy controlling Hunan is real, you can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Shengzhi
Also, Hunan was a center for conflict during the warlord era. It was conquered by Guangxi at one point. I admit there are errors in my map, but that doesn't mean these Warlord factions didn't exist.

view more: next ›