Help me complete this map
Seconds after I post the thread I realize I should've written it this way. Fuck
>>222001296The bane "Serbia" was used intermittently since the 8th century I think, but the title of the Kingdom was created in 1217 officially. Before that it was the Grand Principality o Serbia, and then before that a patchwork of principalities from Rascia (what Hungarians call us to this day), Duklja, Travunia etc...Guess you could put late 11th century as a baseline I suppose (Grand prince Vukan of Serbia) because I don't know how strict your criteria are.
>>222001363the name*
>>222001296ahah, so New Spain existed before Spain according to this mapbraindead retard
>>222001363Was Serbia judirically dissolved after the Ottoman conquest? If so we should count after the Ottomans recreated a polity named Serbia or comprising all the core territories of Medieval Serbia. I'm counting the second iteration of the County of Portugal because the first one got absorbed by the Kingdom of Galicia and ceased to exist for some 25 years. This is also why I put a question mark on Germany because if I were to be consistent I should only count when the Federal Republic was created, so I'm unsure if we should count short lived suppressions like that
>>222001403If you don't get the purpose of this thread then go away. I'm willing to change the date for Spain if there was some formal administrative unit called "Spain" during the crown union of Castile and Aragon
>>222001455Yeah it was recreated in 1813 then if you go by that definition, but it's very arbitrary and leveled against peoples who were under imperial rule all around. Plus the "first predecessor" thing really does put a wrench in the equation.
I left most of Latin America unmarked because I have no idea if Mexico is a successor to New Spain. I'm not well informed on their independence movements but they seem to have been very different to the Brazilian one, which was a secession by the colonial rulers themselves>>222001493I was supposed to write first DIRECT predecessor (to the current polity), I'm a retard
>>222001474there was an administrative unit called Spain in the Roman Empire alreadythe visigoths called themselves kings of Spainthe concept of nation didn't exist so obviously it's not gonna say SPAIN in a mapyou are just blending it in the way it fits your narrative
>>222001566>in the Roman Empire alreadyRefer to >>222001455 >>222001540For what I understand, "Spain" was just an informal name of a region before the Bourbon dynasty, like the land of Brazil was the place where the Portuguese got some brazilwood before their king actually created a political entity named Brazil unifying all their colonies there
>>222001627well you clearly don't understand much, people don't fight a 700 years war to reconquer an "informal region"kys
>>222001691You are choosing to misunderstand my thread on purpose so fuck off
also what happened was multiple christian kingdoms taking land from muslims, you are retconning it as the reconqvest of hispania but in reality they were distinct countries doing it for religion and for expansionism, not because "we all need to reestablish roman/visigothic hispania o algo"
>>222001296Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Sultanate of Rum for Turkey
>>222001852There's no continuity between Rum and Turkey. The map is for the first *direct* predecessor of countries or territories
>>222001296Sweden was mentioned in text for the first time in Beowulf. Written in the 700s. Swedes as a people was mentioned for the first time in 93BC by roman historians
>>222001903It was the first state of the Anatolian Turks, was it not?
>>222001296Ok, fixed the map to clarify things>>222001493If you could say Ottoman Serbia and therefore independent Serbia came from this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Serbia... I think we can claim continuity all the way since early medieval Principality of Serbia (780 AD), if they really did keep calling it Serbia for all over these years of if they called it something else but kept the core parts of Serbia as one thing>>222001983But there wasn't a continuity between it and modern Turkey
>>222002128
>>222001296The Real Audiencia of Santa Fe was created on 1549.
9th century, Principality of Kyiv or more broadly Kyivan Rus'
>>222001296Poland was created in 966, but its ruling Piast dynasty ruled the Polan tribes for like a century or two before that (Poles don't realy count that because it's more myth than history now, even if names get thrown around).
>>222003977>Real Audiencia of Santa Fe and what is that today?>>222004073Kyivan Rus' was destroyed>>222004084Yes, I had included that in my latest update I was just about to post. Poland barely escaped the 30 years of non existence rule or I would have to count from the Duchy of Warsaw
>>222004111I gotta say I'm not sure about Japan
>>222004111my cunt duh
>>222004143This was a tribunal according to a quick glance on spanish wikipedia
>>222004111OK, and?
>>222004157That had more administrative functions than a mere general captaincy and was the de facto government for most things in this territory.
>>222004203Read the thread and the legend on the latest maps. If your polity ceased to exist for more than 30 years you have to start counting again. It's fine if it kept existing as a subdivision of another country but if it was really gone and forgotten there's nothing I can do to you. Also Rus' was an indirect predecessor of a bunch of Slavic countries not just Ukraine
>>222004243By these criteria, Kyivan Rus' still qualifies, though
>>222004290Explain
>>222004305Kyivan Rus' - Principality of Kyiv + other principalities + Kingdom of Ruthenia - Kyiv Voevodship + various other Ruthenian voevodship - Cossack Hetmanate - various subdivision within russian empire and A-H empire - UNR / Hetmanate + ZUNR - UNR government in exile / Ukrainian SSR / Carpatho-Ukraine / various resistance movements - modern Ukraine
>>222001296this looks extremely arbitrary
>>222001296Greece green
>>222004490This is based on how long a particular administrative unity has existed, counting from the first time their core regions have been politically unified, either under the same state or subnational division. I added a new rule to forgive periods of hiatus of less than 30 years. This is the latest map >>222004111I might have to change Turkey and Japan. If the Ottoman beylik counts I should count the Kingdom of Sardinia for Italy too
>>222001296>>222001335You don't get credit for anything Portugal did.Your history starts in 1822, over 50 years after ours
>>222004636how long a particular administrative unity has *continuously existed
>>222004660Brazil wasn't invented in 1822
>>222004490It's a vira lata desperate to come up with some arbitrary metrics which make Brazil > USA and also make Portugal look better than brits
>>222004669Your Brazil was. Prior to that it's all Portuguese. America came before Brazil. Stop trying to claim credit for things the Portuguese did
>>222001296HRE was the predecessor of Germany
>>222001296This thread is interesting and I understand your reasoning, but what you are trying to do here is a sisyphean task. An exercise in futility, even."How old is your country?" has to be one of the most polarizing questions you could ask, and trying to get a consensus on it is meaningless.
>>222004682You are the one attributing a value judgment for polities according to how old they are, I didn't do that.>>222004697Independent Brazil is simply the Kingdom of Brazil after it seceded from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves. Nothing new was created, it just gained political independence but everything was already there, including (what is not the subject of this thread) all my ancestors. What you are suggesting is like saying the state of Alabama only existed when it was sovereign, between its secession from the USA and its admission in the CSA. It didn't exist before and it doesn't exist now. Do you see how this is dumb? Alabama obviously exists, it's just not independent
>>222004711Modern Germany is the result of a Prussian-led unification. Because it excluded Austria it cannot claim predecessors of a theoretical Greater Germany that never came to be (the Anschluss was the Berlin Germany annexing Austria many decades after Berlin Germany was formed without Austria, it was not a genuine reiteration of the HRE and even if it was it doesn't matter because it was destroyed by the Allies)
>>222001296anatolian seljuks founded after battle of manzikert 1071 and conquest of anatolia
>>222004111Grand Duchy of Finland is mentioned the first time in 1518. We don't know when it was actually formed. That mention of it puts it already being in existence.
>>222001566You mean Hispania?Stop obfuscating history, perfidious Castilian
>>222004111>>222004140Empire of Japan is 19th century
>>222004669>>222004856We had to put some bases there, because the Fr*nch were already fucking aroundhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_Antarctique
>>222001296This is already extremely arbitrary. The bar you use to determine what counts as a "predecessor" is wildly variable.Why is a 13th century Ottoman principality which only controlled a small amount of land the predecessor of Turkey, a 20th century republic which explicitly broke away from the culture of the Ottoman empire?If you applied the same standard then the predecessor of modern Germany should be the establishment of the margraviate of Brandenburg in 1157.
>>222004111lmao I hadn't seen this oneYeah claiming that modern China is directly related to the Shang dynasty is exactly what I mean by arbitrary. You might as well say Italy started in 753 BC with the foundation of Rome at that point and Greece goes back to the Mycenaean period.If you wanted any degree of consistency at the very least China should go back to the Qin, which would still be ridiculous considering how many times the whole country broke apart and was conquered and divided into different independent pieces with their own unique histories since then. It's only from the Ming dynasty onwards that China got relatively stable, even if it was conquered afterwards.But then France only goes back to the 9th century? I assume that's for Charlemagne.Never mind that Charlemagne inherited his realm from his father, which would take it at least to the 8th century instead. And that Pepin I didn't create a new realm but rather just take the crown from the Merovingians. Why doesn't it go back to the 5th century kingdom of the Franks established by Clovis I, who already ruled virtually all the territory of modern France? Charles de Gaulle himself said that was the beginning of French identity.
Oh I assume the France thing is for the kingdom of west Francia after the death of Louis I?So let me get this straight>Chinese dynastic crisis, the realm splits in 10000 pieces controlled by different Han families and 50 different non-Han barbarian tribes>500 years later one dude conquers some fraction of the land again>yeah it's all the same polity>French dynastic crisis, the realm splits into 4 parts all controlled by the same family>actually the core Frankish lands are still whole, it's only the external lands in Germany and Italy that broke away>uhhh this is clearly a new polity never before seen with no precedentsHow is that less consistent than, say, the transition from the Tang dynasty to the Song, throughout which the realm was split, conquered by barbarians and the Western territories split off to form their own thing, not to be conquered by a polity centered around the Yellow river until the Yuan dynasty?Nevermind that Franks in the 5th century called themselves Franks and Franks in the 8th century... still called themselves Franks. Meanwhile Chinese words to refer to their culture and people shifted a lot between the 8th and 11th centuries. See pic.The inconsistency here, and this is just an example, is taking a rather critical and rigorous approach to French history and an extremely superficial and permissive approach to Chinese history. The idea that China is a single entity throughout millennia is a crafted historical narrative, just as much as claiming that modern Italy is the successor of the Roman republic.Not trying to put Chinese history down btw, it's super interesting. The inconsistency in the treatment of one country's history to another one's is the issue for me.
>>222009232I agree with you on Turkey, I was unsure when I put it like that, this is why the question mark. I don't know when the Ottoman state became Turkey. Probably core Turkey would be the area where Turkish speaking people lived>>222009400>>222009637I'm not super knowledgeable on Chinese dynasties but I checked how long it took from the Mongol annexation to a Mongol dynasty in China and it was less than 30 years, so I considered China's existence to be continuous. If you show me a period of 30 or more years in which no polity (subdivision or sovereign state) controled the whole Yellow River valley I will gladly change the count for China on the map.Notice that core Italy isn't only the city of Rome or else the current state would refer to itself as "Rome." They are the Piedmontese-led unification of the whole peninsula, so their existence has been discontinuous even if the existence of the city of Rome has not. The same with Greece, which was divided in multiple subdivisions inside the Ottoman empire after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire.France comes from West Frankia. The core of the original Frankish empire wasn't in what became France. What the elite calls themselves doesn't matter. I think I wrote the best definition of my idea here >>222004636
>>222001296Kazakh khanate was created 1465 by kerei and zhanibek when multiple tribes moved out of Abulkhair Khanate
>>222012357After Russia conquered it did they keep an oblast or something containing the Kazakh area? If there was no subdivision containing core Kazakh land then its existence was discontinued and we would have to start counting after it was created again, maybe as a socialist republic or earlier if there was a Kazakh polity before
>>222012511During the empire times many places were very rebellious and continued to exist as they did before with annoying imperial administration. It stopped only when reds started to do retarded shit, but it was in already kazakh republic so continuity is de facto was never cut
>>222001296México, Guatemala, Belice, el Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica 1535
>>222001296If we are being technical, what the Leyes Nuevas (New Laws) of 1542 established was that a viceroy should reside in the provinces or kingdoms of Peru.As for what those provinces or kingdoms were, they originally corresponded to the territories granted to Pizarro and Almagro's expedition. In 1529, after Pizarro returned to Spain and before the conquest of the Inca Empire during his third voyage, the Crown granted him authority over a territory much smaller than the full extent of the Tawantinsuyu or The Inca Empire, at the time known by the exonym of Peru or the Kingdom of Peru, since the Spaniards were still unaware of its true size.
>>222013757This initial jurisdiction was based on the lands and knowledge discovered during the second voyage (1526 to 1528). Pizarro's original governorship extended from the town and province of Atacames, near the present-day Ecuadorian-Colombian border, down to the city and port of Chincha in southern Peru. Chincha itself was known only by report, based on what the indians in Tumbes told Pizarro in 1528. The Spaniards had not actually sailed anywhere near that far south yet. As for why they mistakenly believed this represented the limits of this kingdom, it may have resulted from poor communication regarding the coastal extent of the Chinchaysuyu quarter.Pizarro’s jurisdiction was later expanded by the Crown through the 1534 capitulation, mainly to ensure that Cusco fell under his authority. The new southern limit reached as far as the lands of the towns of Coli and Chepi, perhaps the southernmost jurisdictions of the Inca province of Chincha. South of that, the Crown created the Governorship of Nueva Toledo in 1534 (along with a couple of others), which Diego de Almagro had long sought, well only a few years, but it was long given the rapid pace of events.Even so, Almagro still attempted to seize Cusco from Pizarro, and they ended up killing each other in a civil war. Then came the Viceroyalty with the Leyes Nuevas. The Viceroyalty expanded to incorporate the lands conquered in present-day Colombia as well, which had been partially conquered by Pizarro's group. Eventually, its jurisdiction extended as far north as Panama.
>>222013757>>222013788I'm thinking about perfecting my definition of direct predecessor polity as: area under continuous or continuous-ish (<30 years gap) administration having at least 50% of the settled area of a previous polity at the time it was first established. In this case do you think we would push back the time count for the existence of Peru to Inca times? This would be the case if the Spanish held most of the original area of the Inca Empire in less than 30 years after its collapse>>222012239I remembered the warring states period of China. If no petty kingdom got most of the yellow river valley then we would really have to push the count to more recent times
