Conquer Club

I actually like those names. It was a tiny pleasant surprise to realize that India was completely masked by the legend. I have nothing against India, it was just a matter of recognizing the size and position of these places. Sort of "Well, what do you know about that?"

RedBaron0 wrote:Looks like we're finally out of nitpicks

Hooray! feels good to be in the forge.


Ender516 last time I checked the XML it looked ready to be sent off for approval, do you agree?

ender516 wrote:I actually like those names. It was a tiny pleasant surprise to realize that India was completely masked by the legend. I have nothing against India, it was just a matter of recognizing the size and position of these places. Sort of "Well, what do you know about that?"

I like the three west of the legend. The two east of the legend looks a little out of place though. I didn't realize India was covered at first either. Came as a little surprise .

The Bison King wrote:

RedBaron0 wrote:Looks like we're finally out of nitpicks

Hooray! feels good to be in the forge.


Ender516 last time I checked the XML it looked ready to be sent off for approval, do you agree?

I think we are ready to go. I posted a version here, and I don't think anything that has changed since then would affect the XML. So I think we can go with Colonial_Africa_2.4.xml.

Sweet! ok XML submitted for approval.

Still awaiting XML stamp

It was kinda fun watching your avatar dance to that clip, TBK. Of course, playing this map would be better.

ender516 wrote:It was kinda fun watching your avatar dance to that clip, TBK. Of course, playing this map would be better.

Agreed.


--Andy

Ok it's been over a month now, since I submitted the XML for approval. I'm hoping I'll see a stamp in the next couple days.

The Bison King wrote:Ok it's been over a month now, since I submitted the XML for approval. I'm hoping I'll see a stamp in the next couple days.

Have patience, tnb80 has been extremely busy in Rl, and with natty not doing it anymore ...

i think this must be about the perfect resource for you. sorry about posting it so late in the process, but i think it should give you some inspiration and maybe help you make the map a little more historically accurate. it has many tribes, battles, and colonies, and shows their borders year by year. you may want to do it circa 1900, at which point things are mostly settled, or else do it circa 1870, before the scramble.
good luck!

To what are you referring? I see no link.

Who knows...


XML stamp please.

Thumbs up for this map.


--Andy

ender516 wrote:To what are you referring? I see no link.

soory, forgot the link.... thats strange... i copied, pasted, and then deleted it... strange.
here it is


really good map otherwise!!!

vodean wrote:

ender516 wrote:To what are you referring? I see no link.

soory, forgot the link.... thats strange... i copied, pasted, and then deleted it... strange.
here it is


really good map otherwise!!!

DUDE!!!!

That's really cool. Thank's for posting that.

The Bison King wrote:

vodean wrote:

ender516 wrote:To what are you referring? I see no link.

soory, forgot the link.... thats strange... i copied, pasted, and then deleted it... strange.
here it is


really good map otherwise!!!

DUDE!!!!

That's really cool. Thank's for posting that.

thank IB, but more importantly my awesome history teacher
no problem. glad to help

just double-check what you see in that map. It has lots of errors.

It seems even universities have a problem understanding that the berlin conference was no treaty representing true political, military or economic control.

small example: Congo free state didn´t conquer Katanga/Garanganze until -91 but this map pretends CFS of -86 was almost as big as DRC which is completely ridiculous. Large parts were still unexplored and certainly not officially CFS.

..but I´ve seen much worse - lots of lies and propaganda in colonial maps that doesn´t reflect actual history.


the easiest thing is of course to skip forward a couple of decades and pretend that the european version of history is the correct one..

guttorm wrote:just double-check what you see in that map. It has lots of errors.

It seems even universities have a problem understanding that the berlin conference was no treaty representing true political, military or economic control.

small example: Congo free state didn´t conquer Katanga/Garanganze until -91 but this map pretends CFS of -86 was almost as big as DRC which is completely ridiculous. Large parts were still unexplored and certainly not officially CFS.

..but I´ve seen much worse - lots of lies and propaganda in colonial maps that doesn´t reflect actual history.


the easiest thing is of course to skip forward a couple of decades and pretend that the european version of history is the correct one..

really? the reason the BWAC was called was in part due to Belgian expansion in the CFS, and to decide how to "deal with" human rights violations... even if they were unexplored, they were technically CFS. If the CFS was not that large and threatening, the BWAC would not have been called. I have seen maps where in 1884 the CFS was almost the same size as the DRC... i dont think that you can reasonably say that this map or Brown are either misinformed or evil.

This map is:
a. incredibly detailed including battles and year-by-year expansion
b. accurate as far as any map possibly could be: there are conflicting historical accounts. Not just african vs. european, but conflicting european, and conflicting african accounts.

choose to think that this map is BS if you want, but its pretty damned accurate, and a great source.

Also, being that you are in sweden (or your IP records you as being there), you seem to be one of the evil racist white people you are complaining about so vehemently.

vodean wrote: If the CFS was not that large and threatening, the BWAC would not have been called. I have seen maps where in 1884 the CFS was almost the same size as the DRC...

Stop looking at fake maps like that. That´s completely ridiculous and unhistorical. Read books on history instead of staring at erroneous amateur maps you found on the internet.
..anyone can make a map and include claims that doesn´t reflect officially recognised history or reality. It doesn´t change actual history.

i dont think that you can reasonably say that this map or Brown are either misinformed or evil.

What are you talking about? The Brown map is obviously misinformed since it has factual errors.. but evil? What do you mean? An error is an error - actual history should be your source, not any roughly extrapolated maps sourced from the internet. The ppl behind the brown map made mistakes but i don´t think it was on purpose so how can it be "evil"?
I actually think the Brown map is quite impressive even though I found mistakes within seconds. Unfortunately their feedback link seems to be broken.

This map is:
a. incredibly detailed including battles and year-by-year expansion
b. accurate as far as any map possibly could be: there are conflicting historical accounts.

detailed, yes quite.. but once again; since it has errors.. definitely not as accurate as it could be.
Going with my example (which you are ignoring..) there are no historical accounts for the CFS conquering Katanga in -86 because it didn´t happen until five years later.
Where is your "conflicting historical account" that says Katanga was conquered in the eighties?
Give me a source for that - an actual historical account.

choose to think that this map is BS if you want, but its pretty damned accurate, and a great source

never said it was BS and i agree it is "pretty" accurate regarding most things.. good for general basic reference but far from "as accurate as possible".
I guess you are not very accustomed to using source criticism or similar.

vodean wrote:Also, being that you are in sweden (or your IP records you as being there), you seem to be one of the evil racist white people you are complaining about so vehemently.

I said nothing about that faulty concept called "race" - I don´t believe in it. You are the racist here dude.. read my post and what you quoted again.. you are inventing little things in your head, kid.
Genetically I am less than 25% swedish.. and if you think they were as responsible for evil colonisation as the latin, anglo-saxon, main germanic etc world then you are very uneducated. People are people - their personalities are not shaped by the amount of melanin in their skin. Grow up, kid!

taking your racist theories further.. Is Obama 50% "evil racist white"? Was Bob Marley also 50% "evil racist white"? I don´t think so..
You are 100% ridiculous and a racist.

Now, give me that source for CFS conquering Katanga/Garanganze/Yeke kingdom in the 80:s or shut up. Either way - drop your racism. It´s really stupid. Grow up.


EDIT: actually.. don´t bother answering.. (it would be impossible to give a truthful answer without admitting you are wrong so you might as well drop it)..

I´m backed up by all serious historians on the matter so I really don´t care about what some racist kid has to say.
Let´s not spam thebisonking´s thread.

Okay guys, that will be enough of this. If you want to continue this, please do it via pm's!! This will be the only warning given. If this continues then further action will be taken.

isaiah40 wrote:Okay guys, that will be enough of this.

agreed..

If you want to continue this, please do it via pm's!!

Please don´t encourage him/her/whatever. I´m not in the least interested in any continuation or pm:s regarding this!! (or any other homegrown racist theories)

Whoa.... that got out of hand....

XML Stamp please?

checking....if everything is in the right place it will come tomorrow