Silly problem that's driving me mad

[EccentricGentleman]

I've been in the process of world building for a while now and I've run up against this problem which may seem frivolous but has got me going in circles.
If you will examine the matter in this link:

https://photos-4.dropbox.com/t/0/AA...vRE_fJwRryeUf3YL4b3smJ0ncu_d7j4?size=1280x960

You should see a map of one of the continent's of drawn for my fictional world. I've already put in rivers, national borders, a few cities and names. In the centre I've put a lake that is so large it contains an island the size of Great Britain. This island is the home of a civilisation that for the time being I'm calling the Victorians.
The thing is, I also want them to own the orange desert in the top left corner, but I've heard that unless a nation is connected to the rest of its land it won't hold together which may be why the Roman and British empires collapsed. So I had the idea that the Victorians also owned a large parcel of land between the two locations which connected them. But I'm having great frustration trying to find out why they own it.
My initial thought that they had simply use their wealth and trading ability to buy the land but I find it difficult to believe that anyone would willingly part with that much land. You see there are three civilisations on this continent that are at a 1800s level of civilisation and I assume that means the rest of the continent has to be as well, meaning that the area between the desert and the island has to have multiple cities in it, which means that the country is there wouldn't simply sell the land.
Another idea I had was that there had been a massive war in this region and that the land between the island and the desert had been decimated, the Victorians then bought the land from the surviving countries in exchange for helping them rebuild.
A third idea was that the land itself was somehow un-buildable, bogs, rocky terrain etc. The Victorians then bought this I inherited land and use their engineering skills to make it habitable. Surely such a huge task would be to staggering to any nation to achieve?
Finally I thought about simply scrapping this whole continent and redesigning it. Possibly putting the Victorians on a subcontinent just off the coast and near the desert anyway, but then I would lose this inland island which I think is something unique in world building.
Probably tell me it's no big deal but I am going round and round with this and becoming incredibly frustrated.

 

[Scribble]

I can't access your Dropbox link. It is locked to us!

 

[Aosto]

I can't see it either. But to your question...It's your world. I wouldn't worry much about how they own it, just come up with a semi-believable way for them to own it. Again, it's your world. I, as a reader, wouldn't think to relate it to our own and think "Hmm, but how can they own it and be separated from it."
As far as I know, Australia is under the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

 

[CupofJoe]

There is a bit of Afghanistan that point up towards China. It wasn't originally/historically part of that country. It was added to Afghanistan to stop the British and Russian Empire touching. A reason like that might work.
As for terra-forming. there is no end to what people are willing to do if there is a believable goal [isn't half of the Netherlands reclaimed from the sea? and a huge area of China was irrigated and drained...]
The Roman empire and it's successors held together [in differing shapes and names] for the best part of a thousand years. The British Empire didn't do so well but it held on to overseas territories for several hundred years in some places...
I can't see the drop box either...

 

[CupofJoe]

As far as I know, Australia is under the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

but no-one on either side likes to make an issue of it...

 

[EccentricGentleman]

Thanks for the feedback.

While we're on the subject, I mentioned that they might have made some of the land buildable.
What are some of the reasons land might be unbuildable and how would they make it buildable?
One way I thought of is that part of the land might be marsh and the other part rocky. So they break up the rocks and bulldoze them into the marsh to solidify it.

 

[Trick]

Anything built on that filled in marsh would still sink. You could go the way of the Netherlands or Louisiana and push back the ocean with dam/dike systems. Opens up all sorts of possible problems but people have actually done it, so it's believable.

 

[ThinkerX]

So I had the idea that the Victorians also owned a large parcel of land between the two locations which connected them. But I'm having great frustration trying to find out why they own it.

While we're on the subject, I mentioned that they might have made some of the land buildable.
What are some of the reasons land might be unbuildable and how would they make it buildable?
One way I thought of is that part of the land might be marsh and the other part rocky. So they break up the rocks and bulldoze them into the marsh to solidify it.

Your user name is the answer. The nation in question possesses this land, and it is habitable, soley through the efforts of a few 'eccentric gentlemen', now ensconsed in the national mythology, complete with absurdist holidays.

 

[Addison]

I'm having a broken record moment: It's your story, your call. If you want the Victorians to own a piece of desert in the top left corner then they can own it. Don't think so hard into it. It's a completely different world that follows you, who should follow your world. But if it's really nagging at you, then might I direct your attention to U.S.A and our great state of Michigan. The bulk of the state meets the north border of Indiana. Another third of the state is in a lake with the border of the chunk touching Wisconsin. So technically, following your thoughts, that piece across the lake should be Wisconsin's land. But it's not.

So, rule of thumb for fantasy. Your world, your call.

 

[TheokinsJ]

Firstly, the British Empire didn't collapse, they lost America back in the 1770s but besides that, they never lost any more land. At it's height in the early 1900s, the British owned India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Egypt and most of the middle east and had footholds in other places in Indonesia and Malaysia. Today, India, Australia and New Zealand are part of the 'Commonwealth', (Basically it means their head of state is the Queen of Britain, so technically we're still part of the 'empire' so to speak). Most of the other countries the British ruled over were given their independence, so the empire did not collapse, rather people didn't see the need for an empire anymore.
Anyway, the point I was just trying to prove is that a nation does not have to be connected to the rest of it's land to hold it, the British are the living proof of that. However, if a country is not connected to the lands it owns it must have a good navy to be able to gain access to those lands.
I cannot see your map but I would suggest, that the 'Victorians' as you call them, do not need to own the land between their country and the desert- so long as there is a river or sea or something next to it, they have access via their ships and navy and can probably hold it. Another reason why they may be able to hold it is because who wants the desert anyway? Just a few things for thought, hopes this helps.

 

[skip.knox]

>I've heard that unless a nation is connected to the rest of its land it won't hold together

This is, put simply, a fallacy. There are innumerable examples; I won't bother to list them but you can start with the Greeks.

More importantly, the statement is an obvious fallacy because it doesn't specify a time period. Won't hold together *for how long*? A month? A decade? A millenium?

Less obvious is the statement about "nation". There's a difference between a nation-state, an empire, a kingdom. And what does "hold together" mean?

In short, the statement doesn't hold water, so don't sweat it. Write it the way you want it to happen and we'll believe you.