-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Mapping The world
- Thread starter Rowancool
- Start date
Acolyte
Shadoe
Sage
I think it would depend largely on technology in your world. It would depend on how far his army could get, and how quickly, to enforce his rule. I suppose the type of government would have a hand in that as well. (European kingdoms were fairly small in medieval times, but look at China of the same period - huge.)
Geographical features might limit the size as well. How easy is it for them to get over mountains or across rivers/oceans?
Geographical features might limit the size as well. How easy is it for them to get over mountains or across rivers/oceans?
- Thread starter
- #3
I would think the geography more important than the technology. Countries like Liechtenstein exist up to this day, not larger than they were ever before. On the other hand the Akkadian empire was rather huge. It is sometimes called the first empire in history. And no one would call that high tech.
In regards to technology, the question is not only how fast you could get your armies to the borders, but also how long you can keep them in the field. The Akkadians had the problem that all campaigns had to be over in autumn, because the men were needed on the fields.
In regards to technology, the question is not only how fast you could get your armies to the borders, but also how long you can keep them in the field. The Akkadians had the problem that all campaigns had to be over in autumn, because the men were needed on the fields.
TWErvin2
Auror
Geography and resources. The size of a kingdom would also depend on meeting it's needs for food and water. A desert kingdom might be larger geographically while having far fewer citizens.
It may also depend on the political structure and how aggressive one kingdom's ruler is as compared to another. There is also the notion of an Empire with rulers that are loyal to it.
It may also depend on the political structure and how aggressive one kingdom's ruler is as compared to another. There is also the notion of an Empire with rulers that are loyal to it.
The size of a nation depends on a lot of factors. As other have already stated, geography plays a part, as do technology and government, but also individuals in power, military stretegy, and political stability. Let's have a look at some of these things:
Geography. Let's take Ireland as an example. For most of human history, Ireland has been a nation apart. When the Romans conquered Britain, they never even touched Ireland (though it has been suggested that Agricola would have had a go if he'd stayed in charge of the Legions in Britain a bit longer). It wasn't until the last few centuries that Britain, being a larger island nation, with what was initally a growing empire out across the rest of the world, started looking towards the Emerald Isle, but even now Ireland maintains a fierce independance, with various campaigns particularly in the last few decades by some to return Northern Ireland to the Republic's control. That's based on historical independance, which in turn is based upon geography.
Aside from sees, other geographical features can also provide barriers to expansion: mountains, rivers, deserts, or simply latitude -too close to the poles, and it gets a bit chilly, too close to the equator and you'll have trouble with the heat, water supply, etc. At the same time, though, many of these features, particularly rivers and seas, can enable expansion. The Roman Empire encompassed the Mediterranean region in its height, and Britain, accessable only by crossing first Gaul and then the English channel, was so impossibly far away that some contemporaries of Julius Caesar accused him of making up his visit to British shores on the grounds of their belief that Britain didn't even exist. But at the same time, the area of Judea was being conquered by the Romans. The distance from Rome to Jerusalem is almost double that from Rome to London. The mediterranean facilitated travel over great distances, particularly because it is an almost entirely enclosed sea, connected to the Atlantic only by the straits of Gibraltar, and thus subject to smaller tidal fluctuations and less destructive storms than the Atlantic, and thus far easier to sail than the dangerous Dover-Calais crossing, at least to people who were unused to building ships suitable for the unpredictable weather conditions and the different tidal conditions of the Atlantic, the English channel and the North Sea area. Rivers, too, made travel fasters than over land, provided they were deep enough for a ship and didn't wind back and forth too much.
Technology. Particularly farming technology. The more men you need to harvest your crops and feed your people, the fewer you can have as part of an army during the harvest season. Most early civilisations were predominantly farmers - it is thought that some 90% of the population of the Roman empire lived in the countryside, many at subsistence level farming. The more advanced your farming technology, such as iron ploughshares, crop rotation, and whatnot, the fewer people are needed to farm to produce the same amount of food. Increased efficiency create surplus, enabling more people to work in other sectors, including a professional army. Once you can afford a professional army, you've got two things your seasonal-army enemy does not have: an army throughout the year, not just summer, and men who are more thoroughly trained in combat because they can train year-round, rather than, again, just during the summer.
Government. To be honest I don't think the type of government really has much of an influence on this. Rome controlled large larts of the Mediterranean world while still a Republic, and in the modern world, the USA, also a Republic, albeit of a different type, is the most powerful nation in the world. The Empire of Alexander the Great covered a huge area by his death, but it all fell apart afterwards, partly due to the lack of an heir, but also partly because of how he went about it. Cities were rarely founded, Alexander just going for victories further and further afield. Rome's empire lasted as long as it did because everywhere it went it founded veteran colonies, amalgamating the provinces into Roman culture and imposing Roman order and beaurocracy upon indigenous populations. So rather than type of government, I'd argue that the policy of expansion held by a government really dictated its success.
Individuals. This applies to strong leaders - and I hate to keep using the Roman empire, but it really does have the best examples that I am aware of - such as Augustus, without whom the Roman empire could have fallen apart before it even began, and Vespasian, who was born a plebian, albeit a rich one, became a very successful legate, leading the 2nd legion in the invasion of Britain, a general in the Judean war, and ultimately the Emperor in 69AD after the chaos that came about following Nero's death. Vespasian succeeded in holding the empire together after Nero's corrupt and in many ways insane rule and the subsequent chaos of what is known as the Year of the Four Emperors. If one of those other Emperors who siezed control in 69AD had ended up remaining in power - say if Vespasian hadn't decided to go for it himself (he almost didn't), then the history of teh Roman empire would be significantly different.
Military strategy. Part of the success of the Roman empire was the way the legions were equiped and trained. The same goes for the Greek Hoplites. Strong formation and discipline almost always beats disorganised masses of fighters. At the battle of Marathon, the Greeks were severely outnumbered, but they stayed in formation and according to Herodotus, only 192 died, compared to estimates upwards of 5,000 Persians. At the battle of Platea, only one Spartan died - a man who broke ranks to rush the Persians, possibly out of shame of being branded a coward after leaving the battle of Thermopylae on Leonidas' orders. More recently, the British consistently beat the French during the Peninsula War because the British trained with live fire, making them faster at reloading during battle such that on a good day, British regiments could get off 3 rounds for every 2 the French fired. They also had rifle regiments, with longer range, meaning the British could do damage to the French before the French could do damage to the British. It's all back strategy, and using what you have. The French could have used rifles, but Napoleon just didn't like them.
Geography. Let's take Ireland as an example. For most of human history, Ireland has been a nation apart. When the Romans conquered Britain, they never even touched Ireland (though it has been suggested that Agricola would have had a go if he'd stayed in charge of the Legions in Britain a bit longer). It wasn't until the last few centuries that Britain, being a larger island nation, with what was initally a growing empire out across the rest of the world, started looking towards the Emerald Isle, but even now Ireland maintains a fierce independance, with various campaigns particularly in the last few decades by some to return Northern Ireland to the Republic's control. That's based on historical independance, which in turn is based upon geography.
Aside from sees, other geographical features can also provide barriers to expansion: mountains, rivers, deserts, or simply latitude -too close to the poles, and it gets a bit chilly, too close to the equator and you'll have trouble with the heat, water supply, etc. At the same time, though, many of these features, particularly rivers and seas, can enable expansion. The Roman Empire encompassed the Mediterranean region in its height, and Britain, accessable only by crossing first Gaul and then the English channel, was so impossibly far away that some contemporaries of Julius Caesar accused him of making up his visit to British shores on the grounds of their belief that Britain didn't even exist. But at the same time, the area of Judea was being conquered by the Romans. The distance from Rome to Jerusalem is almost double that from Rome to London. The mediterranean facilitated travel over great distances, particularly because it is an almost entirely enclosed sea, connected to the Atlantic only by the straits of Gibraltar, and thus subject to smaller tidal fluctuations and less destructive storms than the Atlantic, and thus far easier to sail than the dangerous Dover-Calais crossing, at least to people who were unused to building ships suitable for the unpredictable weather conditions and the different tidal conditions of the Atlantic, the English channel and the North Sea area. Rivers, too, made travel fasters than over land, provided they were deep enough for a ship and didn't wind back and forth too much.
Technology. Particularly farming technology. The more men you need to harvest your crops and feed your people, the fewer you can have as part of an army during the harvest season. Most early civilisations were predominantly farmers - it is thought that some 90% of the population of the Roman empire lived in the countryside, many at subsistence level farming. The more advanced your farming technology, such as iron ploughshares, crop rotation, and whatnot, the fewer people are needed to farm to produce the same amount of food. Increased efficiency create surplus, enabling more people to work in other sectors, including a professional army. Once you can afford a professional army, you've got two things your seasonal-army enemy does not have: an army throughout the year, not just summer, and men who are more thoroughly trained in combat because they can train year-round, rather than, again, just during the summer.
Government. To be honest I don't think the type of government really has much of an influence on this. Rome controlled large larts of the Mediterranean world while still a Republic, and in the modern world, the USA, also a Republic, albeit of a different type, is the most powerful nation in the world. The Empire of Alexander the Great covered a huge area by his death, but it all fell apart afterwards, partly due to the lack of an heir, but also partly because of how he went about it. Cities were rarely founded, Alexander just going for victories further and further afield. Rome's empire lasted as long as it did because everywhere it went it founded veteran colonies, amalgamating the provinces into Roman culture and imposing Roman order and beaurocracy upon indigenous populations. So rather than type of government, I'd argue that the policy of expansion held by a government really dictated its success.
Individuals. This applies to strong leaders - and I hate to keep using the Roman empire, but it really does have the best examples that I am aware of - such as Augustus, without whom the Roman empire could have fallen apart before it even began, and Vespasian, who was born a plebian, albeit a rich one, became a very successful legate, leading the 2nd legion in the invasion of Britain, a general in the Judean war, and ultimately the Emperor in 69AD after the chaos that came about following Nero's death. Vespasian succeeded in holding the empire together after Nero's corrupt and in many ways insane rule and the subsequent chaos of what is known as the Year of the Four Emperors. If one of those other Emperors who siezed control in 69AD had ended up remaining in power - say if Vespasian hadn't decided to go for it himself (he almost didn't), then the history of teh Roman empire would be significantly different.
Military strategy. Part of the success of the Roman empire was the way the legions were equiped and trained. The same goes for the Greek Hoplites. Strong formation and discipline almost always beats disorganised masses of fighters. At the battle of Marathon, the Greeks were severely outnumbered, but they stayed in formation and according to Herodotus, only 192 died, compared to estimates upwards of 5,000 Persians. At the battle of Platea, only one Spartan died - a man who broke ranks to rush the Persians, possibly out of shame of being branded a coward after leaving the battle of Thermopylae on Leonidas' orders. More recently, the British consistently beat the French during the Peninsula War because the British trained with live fire, making them faster at reloading during battle such that on a good day, British regiments could get off 3 rounds for every 2 the French fired. They also had rifle regiments, with longer range, meaning the British could do damage to the French before the French could do damage to the British. It's all back strategy, and using what you have. The French could have used rifles, but Napoleon just didn't like them.
Last edited:
Oh I ran out of space.
Political Stability. It has been suggested that the reason behind the Roman invasion of Britain was to secure Claudius's position as emperor with a sound military victory. His position was rather rocky, with those wishing to return Rome to a Republic calling for his head, and others wanting their own shot at the title of Imperator. In fact, by this stage, not having a war was a very bad idea, since there were a lot of soldiers in the legions who, if not occupied, would be flooding the city in need of other employment, or else might be available to a popular general or legate with his eye on the Senate. Plus, an idle army isn't bringing in any new land or new loot to add to the coffers or at least pay the men with. Basically, the Roman army got so big that the Empire couldn't afford not to have a war.
Organisation. A poorly organised nation - or company, or army, or whatever - will not be successful. Good records, good lines of communication, keeping soldiers and others fed, were all important parts of a successful military campaign and a successful empire in general. Without the many clerks overseeing things like food supplies, the Roman army would have had a lot of trouble. If the means are in place to organise efficiently, the empire can be strong. The Mycenean civilisation of bronze age Greece, it has been suggested, invented a form of writing, Linear B, for the sole purpose of recording taxes and administrating settlements and palaces. A catalysmic event ended that civilisation in fire, and writing was lost for several centuries in Greece, only to re-emerge in the 8th century BC as a means to publicly record laws.
Identity. If a group of people covering a large area see themselves as ethnically the same, they're more likely to happily consider themselves part of the same nation; if groups who identify as ethnically distinct inhabit a small area, they're more liekly to fight each other and not form a cohesive nation, but rather many small ones. Similarly, religion plays a similar role. Two groups who worship different supernatural forces might fight, while ethnically diverse groups of the same relgion might form an alliance to overcome a nation of a different religion.
So you see, the size of a nation can depend on many factors. Not all need really be considered, but bear in mind that no one cause is solely reponsible. Also remember that, in an empire like that of the Romans, expansion comes in cycles of expansion and consolidation, often dependant on the temperament of the leaders and the political and military situation. The empire expands, finds its borders stretched too thin, with raids coming over where they can no longer defend, and so they consolidate existing borders and ensure they can hold them before pushing on.
Good luck with your worldbuilding.
Political Stability. It has been suggested that the reason behind the Roman invasion of Britain was to secure Claudius's position as emperor with a sound military victory. His position was rather rocky, with those wishing to return Rome to a Republic calling for his head, and others wanting their own shot at the title of Imperator. In fact, by this stage, not having a war was a very bad idea, since there were a lot of soldiers in the legions who, if not occupied, would be flooding the city in need of other employment, or else might be available to a popular general or legate with his eye on the Senate. Plus, an idle army isn't bringing in any new land or new loot to add to the coffers or at least pay the men with. Basically, the Roman army got so big that the Empire couldn't afford not to have a war.
Organisation. A poorly organised nation - or company, or army, or whatever - will not be successful. Good records, good lines of communication, keeping soldiers and others fed, were all important parts of a successful military campaign and a successful empire in general. Without the many clerks overseeing things like food supplies, the Roman army would have had a lot of trouble. If the means are in place to organise efficiently, the empire can be strong. The Mycenean civilisation of bronze age Greece, it has been suggested, invented a form of writing, Linear B, for the sole purpose of recording taxes and administrating settlements and palaces. A catalysmic event ended that civilisation in fire, and writing was lost for several centuries in Greece, only to re-emerge in the 8th century BC as a means to publicly record laws.
Identity. If a group of people covering a large area see themselves as ethnically the same, they're more likely to happily consider themselves part of the same nation; if groups who identify as ethnically distinct inhabit a small area, they're more liekly to fight each other and not form a cohesive nation, but rather many small ones. Similarly, religion plays a similar role. Two groups who worship different supernatural forces might fight, while ethnically diverse groups of the same relgion might form an alliance to overcome a nation of a different religion.
So you see, the size of a nation can depend on many factors. Not all need really be considered, but bear in mind that no one cause is solely reponsible. Also remember that, in an empire like that of the Romans, expansion comes in cycles of expansion and consolidation, often dependant on the temperament of the leaders and the political and military situation. The empire expands, finds its borders stretched too thin, with raids coming over where they can no longer defend, and so they consolidate existing borders and ensure they can hold them before pushing on.
Good luck with your worldbuilding.
Johnny Cosmo
Inkling
That's a nice summary Chilari, a great 'checklist' for creating a nation.
I agree that's a really great summary. Thank you Chilari for that.
But I wouldn't use it as checklist. As always things like this are not universally applicable. For every point exceptions can be found in history. Keep in mind that there is no one and only true way in worldbuilding.
This summary is great, but be brave enough to diverge from it sometimes.
To give an other example than the romans I could talk a bit about Akkad. I don't have my ressources here right at hand. I get to them next weekend at earliest. Send me a reminder if there is interest for that.
I think the Akkadians are interesting, because they were first. King Sargon had to be creative. He could not look to others how they did it and how it turned out, because there were no big empires before him. Only city states.
Johnny Cosmo
Inkling
Regardless as to whether there are exceptions, it would be silly to not consider as much as possible. I'd say do use it as a sort of checklist - and then decide how closely you want to use the information in your world. As you said, be brave enough to diverge, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it.
Well I'll give you some advice since I've been making maps since probably 5th grade.
Maps can be crucial to a complex story, especially when the characters are going all over the place and you're mentioning names left and right. They're a nice touch as a reference and as a visual for your world, it will make everything easier for you and the reader. Creating maps can help you with your plot, plan out future events or stories, and improve the reading experience, especially for those who have troubles remembering new names.
First off, there are no set rules to map making. Always keep that in mind.
Secondly, get a few ideas by checking other maps. LotR, Eragon, Legends of the Dragonrealm have maps in their books, and the Dragonlance books do, too, but I don't think they're that great, no offense. Those are only a few names in the world of fantasy that have maps, and there are countless others. Then again, type in fantasy maps on google images and you'll get tons of ideas. Mostly wacky, very hard to traverse realms, but always a good reference. Keep your style unique like your world that you will be etching onto the paper.
Third, it's not going to be perfect. This is something that frequently aggrivates me, mostly due to being a perfectionist, but nonetheless it's going to pop up all the time. That's drawing for you, but in this case, cartography. Unless your world is going to be a modern-technology or futuristic, chances are your fantasy setting won't have GPS or sattelites... unless you want to do the map from a God's bird's eye view sort of thing. Regardless, you're never truly going to get everything perfect, so don't get fruststrated when you realize you've run out of space on the paper. You can always redo it, yes a pain, but you might like it better another time around; and besides, you'll be redoing your map over and over and over again, trust me.
Fourth - this mostly comes from the second. Be unique while being realistic. This goes for everything, but we're talking about maps. Wait, did he just say, "be realistic?" in fantasy? Yes, I did, now shut up and keep reading. Don't copy names, that's not cool and it can make your world lose its authenticity. I know you want your own Middle Earth - I did - but try to stay as original as possible. It's not hard to come up with names for a region or city, and there are plenty of resources to help you if you're not feeling too creative.
Make your map stand out from the crowd. But most of all, make it fit to your world. If your world is extremely mountainous like mine is, wouldn't your world's inhabitants need to adapt accordingly? If your map's contents are a realm of islands and keys, your inhabitants better have boats. Common sense, people. : ) This is what I mean by being realistic, but, then again, anything is possible. But surely if your character's home is 500 miles away from his destination, it will take him a hell of lot of time to get there. Plan accordingly.
Regarding the creation of your map:
Again, be unique, but don't be shy to get inspiration from others. Don't want to pencil in every little detail? Don't. Your maps don't have to be extremely detailed, although I like mine to be. You do what you feel would be right for your world. Just because your mountains aren't the same as Tolkien's doesn't mean they're not good enough. That's the best thing about drawing anything - there's no real rules. What I'm trying to tell you is: make your map stand out from the others; Make it so that others will be inspired to make their maps by looking at yours; get as creative as possible, this is your world, after all; and lastly, your map can be a major selling point and attention grabber, so make something catch your possible reader's eye.
I hope I helped, although I'm quite tired at the moment and I feel like I just bored you all half to death.
As a side note, if someone would mind telling me, through a private message or a reply, when submitting a piece of work that you want to include a map in, do you just put a copy with the manuscript as an attachment or something? Just curious. Also, does it have to be a specific size? Because mine's on a piece of paper about three times the size of a normal sheet.
Maps can be crucial to a complex story, especially when the characters are going all over the place and you're mentioning names left and right. They're a nice touch as a reference and as a visual for your world, it will make everything easier for you and the reader. Creating maps can help you with your plot, plan out future events or stories, and improve the reading experience, especially for those who have troubles remembering new names.
First off, there are no set rules to map making. Always keep that in mind.
Secondly, get a few ideas by checking other maps. LotR, Eragon, Legends of the Dragonrealm have maps in their books, and the Dragonlance books do, too, but I don't think they're that great, no offense. Those are only a few names in the world of fantasy that have maps, and there are countless others. Then again, type in fantasy maps on google images and you'll get tons of ideas. Mostly wacky, very hard to traverse realms, but always a good reference. Keep your style unique like your world that you will be etching onto the paper.
Third, it's not going to be perfect. This is something that frequently aggrivates me, mostly due to being a perfectionist, but nonetheless it's going to pop up all the time. That's drawing for you, but in this case, cartography. Unless your world is going to be a modern-technology or futuristic, chances are your fantasy setting won't have GPS or sattelites... unless you want to do the map from a God's bird's eye view sort of thing. Regardless, you're never truly going to get everything perfect, so don't get fruststrated when you realize you've run out of space on the paper. You can always redo it, yes a pain, but you might like it better another time around; and besides, you'll be redoing your map over and over and over again, trust me.
Fourth - this mostly comes from the second. Be unique while being realistic. This goes for everything, but we're talking about maps. Wait, did he just say, "be realistic?" in fantasy? Yes, I did, now shut up and keep reading. Don't copy names, that's not cool and it can make your world lose its authenticity. I know you want your own Middle Earth - I did - but try to stay as original as possible. It's not hard to come up with names for a region or city, and there are plenty of resources to help you if you're not feeling too creative.
Make your map stand out from the crowd. But most of all, make it fit to your world. If your world is extremely mountainous like mine is, wouldn't your world's inhabitants need to adapt accordingly? If your map's contents are a realm of islands and keys, your inhabitants better have boats. Common sense, people. : ) This is what I mean by being realistic, but, then again, anything is possible. But surely if your character's home is 500 miles away from his destination, it will take him a hell of lot of time to get there. Plan accordingly.
Regarding the creation of your map:
Again, be unique, but don't be shy to get inspiration from others. Don't want to pencil in every little detail? Don't. Your maps don't have to be extremely detailed, although I like mine to be. You do what you feel would be right for your world. Just because your mountains aren't the same as Tolkien's doesn't mean they're not good enough. That's the best thing about drawing anything - there's no real rules. What I'm trying to tell you is: make your map stand out from the others; Make it so that others will be inspired to make their maps by looking at yours; get as creative as possible, this is your world, after all; and lastly, your map can be a major selling point and attention grabber, so make something catch your possible reader's eye.
I hope I helped, although I'm quite tired at the moment and I feel like I just bored you all half to death.
As a side note, if someone would mind telling me, through a private message or a reply, when submitting a piece of work that you want to include a map in, do you just put a copy with the manuscript as an attachment or something? Just curious. Also, does it have to be a specific size? Because mine's on a piece of paper about three times the size of a normal sheet.
Shadoe
Sage
You bring up an interesting point and I think I'll address it here, because it's pertinent. Including a map with a submission, I'd think you'd want to make it page size to print or at most span two face-to-face pages. Not sure if they're accepting electronic formats now, but I think the same would apply.
It brings to mind the idea that if you want to have a map go with your publication, you'd have to create one that could be reproducible and legible in paperback size. I'd probably ponder making two maps - one for me and one for publication.
It brings to mind the idea that if you want to have a map go with your publication, you'd have to create one that could be reproducible and legible in paperback size. I'd probably ponder making two maps - one for me and one for publication.
grahamguitarman
Sage
A useful tool for world mapping is Autorealms Link Takes some time to get used to, but basically it allows you to drag and drop ready made icons onto a map grid and draw outlines ect. Once the villages are on there you can move things around and add / remove additional locations giving you flexibility in arranging your world. When you have designed your world you can then use that as a basis for a hand drawn map if you want 
I particularly like it because once you have sorted out the locations and the overall scale of your world, it has a measuring tool that you can use to calculate how long it takes to get from one place to another. The measuring tool can be set in the options panel to measure in days by foot, or days by wagon, Warhorse, boat ect.
This makes it a lot easier to work out timescales for your novel based on how long it takes for your characters to reach a certain destination (or for the enemy to intercept them) and to test the practicality of a long term scenario.
I particularly like it because once you have sorted out the locations and the overall scale of your world, it has a measuring tool that you can use to calculate how long it takes to get from one place to another. The measuring tool can be set in the options panel to measure in days by foot, or days by wagon, Warhorse, boat ect.
This makes it a lot easier to work out timescales for your novel based on how long it takes for your characters to reach a certain destination (or for the enemy to intercept them) and to test the practicality of a long term scenario.
Johnny Cosmo
Inkling
That sounds useful, it's a shame I rarely run windows anymore, but I might just have to for this. I've been looking for something like this, so thanks.
- Thread starter
- #15
grahamguitarman
Sage
Yeah I keep trying to break from windows - I actually do prefer Linux, but so much of what I use won't work on it
Johnny Cosmo
Inkling
Well I dual boot OSX10 and Windows 7, but the latter is being used less and less frequently.
Ravana
Istar
Ravana
Istar
Well, Chilari certainly saved me quite a bit of work. So I'll just poke a few (LOL!) details in. Starting–no disrespect–with a minor quibble with something she said.
This can be deceptive, upon the modern reading of the word "nation"–which tends to equate it with "state." On that reading, the Irish were rarely, possibly never, a "nation"… because they weren't a unified state. Even on the strongest readings of the office of "High King" I've encountered, I'm not sure there was a one who didn't end up at war with one or another of his fellow kings at some point during his reign. The first definition of "nation" in my desk-shelf dictionary reads "a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture, and language in common"–a definition for which Ireland does qualify… but which, notably, does not mention political control. That shows up under definition number two. (I imagine Chilari already knows this; just wanted it to be clear for those who did not.) Note also that the definition doesn't require that everybody who falls under that description be included for something to be a "nation": thus, the modern Republic of Ireland is a nation even though there are many self-identifying Irish who don't live in it. Conversely, there aren't any clear guidelines as to what percentage of the population has to meet the definition to count as a "nation," though it certainly has to be an overwhelming majority.
The "nation-state" first arose in modern European history after the end of the Feudal era… and even then it took longer than modern readers might imagine, so often did borders shift around due to wars, inheritance or what have you. Portugal and Spain were probably the earliest two, and those don't really qualify until the 1400s. France (arguably), the Netherlands, and from time to time one or another of the Scandinavian nations (depending on who ruled who that generation) followed; Austria would have counted early, except that it wasn't a separate state but rather a constituent of the HRE. On the other hand, Germany and Italy didn't exist as "states" until the 19th century, even though they were long considered "nations" by their contemporaries; and such places as Switzerland, Canada and especially Belgium (and arguably both the U.S. and U.K) still don't qualify. Nor do China or India, nor the vast majority of African states; possibly not Russia (depending on the percentages you require), and Indonesia would be stretching it at best.
-
As for the other factors, all are pretty well addressed, though I would put greater emphasis on Organization–and its prerequisite, Communication. The faster you can send and receive messages, the broader your potential sphere of control: Roman roads allowed their armies to march rapidly, but they still had to know where they were needed. They also allowed tax money to flow the opposite direction more readily… and food, and other commerce. Even then, they were poor substitutes for water transportation… which is why rivers have historically been powerful unifying influences.
Which brings up another and very important detail: while rivers can make great boundaries–they're obvious, unlike most other types of land border, and they will generally at least slow the passage of large bodies of people–historically, they were rarely used this way. Land-hungry nobles want to control as much of the best as possible… and you aren't going to give up half a perfectly good valley to your neighbor if you can at all help it. (Nor allow a rival a position from which to potentially interrupt their vital function as lines of communication and transit.) About the only time the Romans used rivers this way was when they felt they'd already pushed their boundaries to the limits they could reasonably control–along with the occasional time they tried pushing farther and someone pushed back successfully, causing a reassessment (often temporary) of what constituted "reasonable." Nearly every other map you'll see, at least until modern times, will have rivers running through states rather than along their edges. More often, borders would be drawn along ridge lines–the higher the better–or other forms of inaccessible terrain such as swamps or deserts (these borders tend more toward "undefined"), or at obvious choke-points such as narrow isthmuses–such as the Suez, or Karelia between Russia and Finland.
Most of the rest concern how large a kingdom can grow before something stops it–though they certainly provide good guidelines for this. As mentioned, Alexander conquered a then historically unprecedented area… but never really ruled it. Rome, on the other hand, did rule its realm–for several centuries–which was all but inexplicable even after taking into account the things Chilari mentioned: that's why it retains such fascination to this day. Both empires combined, however, could fit into the back pocket of the one the Mongols established… and very nearly did. Its greatest extent didn't survive more than two generations, true–but for the two generations following that, it was still the largest empire in the world, and wasn't surpassed as a contiguous land empire until the Russians did it (across much the same territory) in the 19th century. And the Mongols, like the Romans, did rule their empire, and exercised a fairly high degree of centralized control… in spite of the fact that it took a year to get from one end of it to the other.
Possibly more helpful views could be gained by looking at how small, rather than large, a state could be and still retain independence or at least a high degree of autonomy over time. The short answer here is "very." Switzerland has never been particularly large; even so, it tripled in size from the time it was founded until its present borders were reached. How did it avoid being crushed by the HRE it was trying to break away from–a struggle that took about two and a half centuries? Morale and mountains. And basically nothing else. (On their part, that is: the endemic, perennial fragmentary nature of the HRE, and its near-constant involvement with external foes, helped a lot.) Yes, they had very good infantry tactics, too… but those were duplicated in less than a generation, especially in the HRE. For that matter, the Swiss didn't even invent them: they were little different from the Greek phalanx. (Anybody who wants to argue with me about that better have done drills with a squad of guys carrying 14-foot pikes–'cause I have. It's a lot of fun, though your shoulders tend to tire after a bit. The Swiss, and their followers, were better at changing the direction they faced, but that's about it… and that part's so easy it's difficult to understand why the Greeks ever had problems with it.)
All the other factors apply to small as well as large–not all in the reverse. Communication becomes easier… unless you're also a country of mountains intermittently interrupted by valleys, in which case yours might not be much better than those of they guys coming at you off the flatlands. Resources: the smaller your country, the less you have, and the fewer you have. Probably of just about everything… and mountains aren't exactly ideal for farming. And so on. As long as you can manage to maintain reasonable relations with your neighbors, you can survive pretty much indefinitely. Liechtenstein has remained independent not because of any of the above factors, but–to be quite blunt–nobody cared about them being there.
Since this is probably pushing that dreaded 10k limit , I'll add a couple comments about mapping itself in a separate post.
This can be deceptive, upon the modern reading of the word "nation"–which tends to equate it with "state." On that reading, the Irish were rarely, possibly never, a "nation"… because they weren't a unified state. Even on the strongest readings of the office of "High King" I've encountered, I'm not sure there was a one who didn't end up at war with one or another of his fellow kings at some point during his reign. The first definition of "nation" in my desk-shelf dictionary reads "a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture, and language in common"–a definition for which Ireland does qualify… but which, notably, does not mention political control. That shows up under definition number two. (I imagine Chilari already knows this; just wanted it to be clear for those who did not.) Note also that the definition doesn't require that everybody who falls under that description be included for something to be a "nation": thus, the modern Republic of Ireland is a nation even though there are many self-identifying Irish who don't live in it. Conversely, there aren't any clear guidelines as to what percentage of the population has to meet the definition to count as a "nation," though it certainly has to be an overwhelming majority.
The "nation-state" first arose in modern European history after the end of the Feudal era… and even then it took longer than modern readers might imagine, so often did borders shift around due to wars, inheritance or what have you. Portugal and Spain were probably the earliest two, and those don't really qualify until the 1400s. France (arguably), the Netherlands, and from time to time one or another of the Scandinavian nations (depending on who ruled who that generation) followed; Austria would have counted early, except that it wasn't a separate state but rather a constituent of the HRE. On the other hand, Germany and Italy didn't exist as "states" until the 19th century, even though they were long considered "nations" by their contemporaries; and such places as Switzerland, Canada and especially Belgium (and arguably both the U.S. and U.K) still don't qualify. Nor do China or India, nor the vast majority of African states; possibly not Russia (depending on the percentages you require), and Indonesia would be stretching it at best.
-
As for the other factors, all are pretty well addressed, though I would put greater emphasis on Organization–and its prerequisite, Communication. The faster you can send and receive messages, the broader your potential sphere of control: Roman roads allowed their armies to march rapidly, but they still had to know where they were needed. They also allowed tax money to flow the opposite direction more readily… and food, and other commerce. Even then, they were poor substitutes for water transportation… which is why rivers have historically been powerful unifying influences.
Which brings up another and very important detail: while rivers can make great boundaries–they're obvious, unlike most other types of land border, and they will generally at least slow the passage of large bodies of people–historically, they were rarely used this way. Land-hungry nobles want to control as much of the best as possible… and you aren't going to give up half a perfectly good valley to your neighbor if you can at all help it. (Nor allow a rival a position from which to potentially interrupt their vital function as lines of communication and transit.) About the only time the Romans used rivers this way was when they felt they'd already pushed their boundaries to the limits they could reasonably control–along with the occasional time they tried pushing farther and someone pushed back successfully, causing a reassessment (often temporary) of what constituted "reasonable." Nearly every other map you'll see, at least until modern times, will have rivers running through states rather than along their edges. More often, borders would be drawn along ridge lines–the higher the better–or other forms of inaccessible terrain such as swamps or deserts (these borders tend more toward "undefined"), or at obvious choke-points such as narrow isthmuses–such as the Suez, or Karelia between Russia and Finland.
Most of the rest concern how large a kingdom can grow before something stops it–though they certainly provide good guidelines for this. As mentioned, Alexander conquered a then historically unprecedented area… but never really ruled it. Rome, on the other hand, did rule its realm–for several centuries–which was all but inexplicable even after taking into account the things Chilari mentioned: that's why it retains such fascination to this day. Both empires combined, however, could fit into the back pocket of the one the Mongols established… and very nearly did. Its greatest extent didn't survive more than two generations, true–but for the two generations following that, it was still the largest empire in the world, and wasn't surpassed as a contiguous land empire until the Russians did it (across much the same territory) in the 19th century. And the Mongols, like the Romans, did rule their empire, and exercised a fairly high degree of centralized control… in spite of the fact that it took a year to get from one end of it to the other.
Possibly more helpful views could be gained by looking at how small, rather than large, a state could be and still retain independence or at least a high degree of autonomy over time. The short answer here is "very." Switzerland has never been particularly large; even so, it tripled in size from the time it was founded until its present borders were reached. How did it avoid being crushed by the HRE it was trying to break away from–a struggle that took about two and a half centuries? Morale and mountains. And basically nothing else. (On their part, that is: the endemic, perennial fragmentary nature of the HRE, and its near-constant involvement with external foes, helped a lot.) Yes, they had very good infantry tactics, too… but those were duplicated in less than a generation, especially in the HRE. For that matter, the Swiss didn't even invent them: they were little different from the Greek phalanx. (Anybody who wants to argue with me about that better have done drills with a squad of guys carrying 14-foot pikes–'cause I have. It's a lot of fun, though your shoulders tend to tire after a bit. The Swiss, and their followers, were better at changing the direction they faced, but that's about it… and that part's so easy it's difficult to understand why the Greeks ever had problems with it.)
All the other factors apply to small as well as large–not all in the reverse. Communication becomes easier… unless you're also a country of mountains intermittently interrupted by valleys, in which case yours might not be much better than those of they guys coming at you off the flatlands. Resources: the smaller your country, the less you have, and the fewer you have. Probably of just about everything… and mountains aren't exactly ideal for farming. And so on. As long as you can manage to maintain reasonable relations with your neighbors, you can survive pretty much indefinitely. Liechtenstein has remained independent not because of any of the above factors, but–to be quite blunt–nobody cared about them being there.
Since this is probably pushing that dreaded 10k limit
, I'll add a couple comments about mapping itself in a separate post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ravana
Istar
Only? Slacker.
Land mapping was amazingly unreliable until early in the modern period. So no matter how good your map is (or isn't), what your characters have available to them isn't even likely to be a fair approximation of what's "really" there.
Not only should you not get frustrated at running out of space, you should probably plan ahead on leaving some. One of my earliest and worst habits was trying to fill the map to the edges, or nearly so… resulting in a lot of improbably rectilinear realms.
As for having to redo your maps: believe it. I recommend always drafting in plain pencil (I use colored a lot, but only after I'm sure I want something to be where I put it, because it's much harder to erase), then making two copies. Use one copy to make additions; if you don't like them, pitch it, take another copy of your most recent original, and make different ones. You always want to have at least one clean copy of every major revision handy, so that if you decide to erase something and don't like the result, you have that to refer to. (Keep in mind that you're going to lose a quarter inch or so all the way around the edges when you make your copies, too–another reason to leave space at the edges.) Also, consider getting good at tracing; a light board is great for this, though sufficiently heavy lines can be seen even without one through a sheet of index paper.
I would have said "use logic," but it's essentially the same thing.
This point, I would put less emphasis on… not because it isn't true, but because odds are no publisher is going to want to print one until you're already pretty well established. And if they are willing to print one, they're going to get someone to redraw what you give them anyway, unless you happen to be better than anyone they've got, if for no other reason than because it will have to be done in ink, not pencil. For that matter, they're almost guaranteed to get someone to redraw it if you are better than anyone they've got–to get rid of the tiny details you shouldn't be worrying about, but did. As for size, they almost certainly aren't going to want to deal with anything larger than a normal 8.5x11 sheet of paper: even that, they're going to have to reduce (to half the original size, for paperbacks–which is why they're going to want to get rid of your lovingly-rendered details first) before they print it. I wouldn't even send one with the manuscript: tell them you have one in your query letter, and they'll tell you if they could care less about seeing it. They can always include it in the sequel once your fans start begging for one. (Okay, raise your hand if you've ever written a publisher wanting to know why the book you just read didn't have a map in it. No? Exactly.)
Self-publishing, of course, is a different story: then you get the joy of reducing it to an "acceptable" size… whatever that is for your format. Though I'd suspect that anything larger than a Kindle page is probably going to be wasted.
(On the other hand, it may provide you with the option of working in color, which you won't have otherwise.)
Last edited by a moderator:
