HOME | DD
nerdsloth โ Imperialism Map
Published: 2005-08-21 03:53:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 13634; Favourites: 15; Downloads: 2568
Redirect to original
Description
In my little sci-fi storyline, hundreds of years in the future, the Earth is drastically overpopulated and nations are frantically searching for resources and land for their people. Hence, the nations of the world revert to the imperialist practices of European nations of the 18th, 19th, and early- to mid-20th century.Unlike the old imperialistic era, the new era is not wholly dominated by Europe. Rather, I used a few qualifiers to determine which nations would gain empires or retain their land, including:
1. Nuclear capabilities--Nations that are currently nuclear powers or capable of producing nuclear weapons have larger empires.
2. History--Nations that have historically retained large empires are more likely to have empires in the future.
3. Nations I'm interested in--self-explanatory
4. Logic
Regardless, this is the imagined world of the future, grim as it seems. So, on that happy note, enjoy!
**Note: Original map (continent outlines) taken from [link]
***Additional Note: This map has since been replaced by later maps I have made.
Related content
Comments: 31
I see some yellow Hungarian territories in africa ??
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
I feel incredulous that Japan would rise up to create another empire and colonize a bulk of southeast asia. Japan as we know it is not capable in doing that, both militarily and mentally. I would expect Japan to be a non-imperial entity or taken/carved up by Russia, China, and/or America
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
This is an out-of-date version. The new one is here: [link]
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
So you to don't believe in a common european future...
I would say it's kinda unrealistic, espeically the thing with single european nations building empires again (especially France- WTF?!, I love France but come on!). Besides, what about the Balkans? This is definately colony material. In a new age of Imperialism, expect them to be the first ones to disappear.
It's rather boring that you seem to believe that there will be no real FUTURE powers, just the old ones revived.
Wait a minute...
CHINA and INDIA have NOT overtaken the world yet?! Are you kiddin' me?!
Well, at least I have to admit it is interesting, considering that your concepts are the opposite of what I would believe to happen.
Which time in the future, what would you say?
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
This is an old map, so it is not representative of the situation in this sci-fi plot as it currently rests.
That being said, the idea of a unified Europe (politically) seems unrealistic, as nations would likely fight to retain at least some political autonomy. Not to mention, this is for a sci-fi piece which requires that nations feel they are pitted against each other and driven towards exploitation of other nations.
As per your complaints about certain powers, the size of an empire is determined by its military strength, and France is currently one of the greatest powers in Europe, behind perhaps Russia and the UK: if the UK is isolationist and Russia is separated from France by the distance of the whole of the European continent, then France need only remove Germany in order to secure a dominant position in mainland Europe. I tried to set up a situation similar to Europe in the 1870's in which Prussia/Germany sent France reeling and into a defensive, cautious position, but with the roles reversed.
The newer maps largely retcon this one, so to be frank a lot of the criticism is completely irrelevant.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Ok thanks
But don't forget, Military power always needs economic power. Soon, countries like China will be able to build much more powerful militaries than France.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
That's why later on China and India conquer the majority of the Asian continent.
In an imperial setting, economic power is superceded by military power in the sense that if a nation is willing to forcibly invade and annex another for unethical self-interest, it is certainly not above annexing a portion of a nation that possesses valuable economic resources (be they physical or otherwise). Thus, to a great extent, economic power needs to be transferred into military power in an imperial context.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Military power often permits to build an Empire in the first place (like the more or less democratic anglo-saxon empire which still exists), but a global player can easily become insignificant if history is against him.
Take the roman empire for instance. Even when it was going to be destroyed, it was still the greatest military power in the world. Still, it WAS destroyed, by people who were inferior on the technological and the strategic level, but who had lots of blind determination (the will to fight) and time+demography on their side. That's why I still think it is the least probable that any European nation will become a prime global player in the coming centuries.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
There really is no such thing as "having history against someone/something"; rather, situations simply occur to erode the advantages of certain nations over others. The Roman Empire collapsed largely because it was becoming split and forced to spread out its military forces over a massive land area to protect itself from various groups who were skilled enough in warfare to seize great advantage from this.
Regardless, it seems inaccurate to believe that no European nation would be a major power in the future, as Europe has maintained a significant position of power for centuries. Just due to simple geography (in the form of ideal farmland), luck of the draw (with diseases that killed large numbers of people), and technological advantage (due to good farmland allowing for specialization of labor) Europe and its offspring nations were able to exploit other nations in such a manner that they inhibited their development to the present era. Europe and the west currently hold such a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence (including military power) that many nations are forced to play "catch-up," so to speak. Though globalization has greatly increased the economic muscle of China and India, for example, even have not yet reached the affluence of a fully "developed" nation. At the same time, many nations (particularly in areas of Africa) have failed to benefit significantly from a more globalized economy and are still forced to sell raw materials to other nations in a process which mirrors past domination and severely stunts their ability to reverse past exploitation or poverty.
While this in no way precludes an eclipse of the West by other powers, it suggests that a full eclipse of Europe is unrealistic, as many developing and semi-developed nations must still overcome serious problems.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
*sad* Don't like it > France did not have enough territories: "Nouvelle France", India, West Australia, Indochina, Louisiane, ... why are they not French like in the Past ?? *sad*
LOL, funny world !
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
A lot of former colonies are powerful enough to easily prevent French incursion.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Just a detail. . . wouldnยดt it be "The Second Japanese Empire"?
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
I suppose, but it just doesn't flow off the tongue as well, hehe.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
haha, I'm not sure, it sounds fine for me, haha, but it's your work
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Hehe, okay. Thanks.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
perfect & clear
im from non-imperial country (turkey)
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
If this were to happen the Congos seize/federate with the rest of Central Africa? Wouldn't the Nordic countries also unify? Good map, but I would suggest finding a blank map online, and Paintshop that.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
First of all, I'm not entirely certain as to what you mean when you say, "blank," as the map I used was actually just a map of the continents. At the time I did this, I didn't have any idea how to use paintshop--nor do I really know now.
Also, I think you overestimate the unity of the countries within that region. Perhaps you misconstrue their being an imperial possession as being a unified state?
Not to mention, the Scandinavian countries are not militarily powerful enough to have any significant defensive advantages, so they'd likely try to maintain some level of independence.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
Well you should also consider the current population size.. I mean if every country's population were to start spiking, wouldn't you think that places with the largest amount of people per square mile would be first to expand? The United States has a relatively low concentration of people versus the european nations and asian countries. I don't think they'd seriously try to take over all that land. I mean if it it's way in the future, it's logical to say that there'll be certain nations that would be able to develop Nuclear Capabilities. Currently, the global economy is beginning to take a turn -- it is likely that India and China will be the focus of the world economically. No longer will it be dominated by the United States. And it is likely that India and China would be able to create the weapons needed to expand given the Europeans' imperialistic intentions.
[/endlongrantthingy]
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Ah, but now you have provoked me to rant.
First of all, yes, the United States' population density is lower than that of other nations, but the U.S. is inherently greedy in its use of resources. Since the U.S. already uses a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, it is not entirely unrealistic to assume the practice would continue 400+ years into the future. Necessity is never considered in imperialist expansion: we may not need the land and resources as much, but we will take it anyway.
Furthermore, the United States is currently the only major military power in the Americas, thus paving the way for much easier imperial expansion. Given that I determined imperial powers mainly on current nuclear capability, Asia's makeup is much different that North and South America. Rather than one [two, including Brazil with potential] current nuclear power, Asia has several of them: Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, all right next to each other. Hence, these nations have the technology, but none are willing to go to war with nations of that strength to gain the land they desire, taking a note from WWI. Basically, it has become a powederkeg as they all jockey for power; waiting for the opponent to make a mistake so they can strike them down swiftly.
Currently I think that expansion into Asia would be westward, through Pakistan and, perhaps, through Afghanistan under the U.S. puppet government through a pact between China and India.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
Until either China or India breaks that pact, ideally India, as China would still have to defend it's northern and eastern border from attacks from Russia or Japan. And I don't think that Japan would waste time and soldiers on Indonesia and related parts when they could repeat history and drive into China/the Koreas.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
India, yes, would be more likely to break Pakistan, but only because it is currently India's major enemy.
And, yes, China would have to defend itself from Russia in the North, but not necessarily from Japan in the East. Imperial strength is determined by current nuclear strength, and China has nuclear weapons, while Japan does not. Furthermore, China has a population ten times that of Japan and the largest army in the world. Hence, Japan no longer able to invade China and is only able to get on to mainland Asia when it gains the lands that used to be in posession of N. Korea following its overthrow by a coalition.
Plus, given Japan's large navy, the South Pacific islands would be a much better bet for them.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
" India, yes, would be more likely to break Pakistan, but only because it is currently India's major enemy."
I meant the pact with each other.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
It would be more likely that it would result in a Cold War scenario between the two. Both are extremely powerful allies who realize that war between the two would result in a bloody war for both sides.
I think that the way the story is playing out in my mind, India and China will go to war when nuclear weapons are advanced past obsolescence. The resulting nuclear war, however, will result in the loss of their imperial strength, much the same as with all other world imperial powers.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0
interesting, though incredibly biased of course.
๐: 0 โฉ: 1
That is inevitable with this sort of thing. Yet, I am curious as to how you believe it to be so.
๐: 0 โฉ: 0