Tinto Maps #28 - 29th of November 2024 - North America

[Maxipuchi]

I would be fine with a hybrid approach. The place where I take issue is if you can't recreate something that at least resembles the historical borders. That doesn't seem fair to those who do want to recreate something that resembles our own history. That is especially true if other countries were afforded that respect.

The default should be consistency and the ability to follow something that resembles history.

I can understand the argument that colonial borders should not be forced into alignment of historical colonial borders. This is an alternate history. The borders could have ended up differently. That makes sense.

The problem comes in when you extend that to say that the colonial borders couldn't align with those of history. So, a player could not recreate what historically happened. That doesn't make sense. Especially when it is compared with how other countries were treated.

It's not inconsistent not to include modern borders, if you go look at the feedback thread for Poland, there was a big fuss kicked up by certain German players about how they could no longer recreate the borders of Prussia in 1815 because the devs had opted to shape the Polish provinces after the borders that the Polish had used.

In my opinion it makes a lot of sense to prioiritise the existing borderse of an existing culture rather than the borders that would be imposed on that culture hundreds of years later, and this is consistent with the approach the devs have taken so far.

The assumption that native polities strictly followed geographical features is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. There is no guarantee that they would regard topography the same way that modern people do, and we certainly don't know what most of their "borders" (if you could even call them that in 1337) looked like. We're making assumptions based on local geography in lieu of historical records.

Most of the US's straight-line borders are in areas where there are not mountains or rivers available to determine a solid regional border. How do you geographically divide a flat plain with no large rivers into distinct areas? Or a series of low hills with small rivers snaking through them? Is a river a border or the central focus of an area? Choosing one small river to serve as an area border because natives might have established the border there would just be an arbitrary decision with no historical basis, unlike the straight-line borders.

Also, from what I can see, the world-wide map is pulling geographic information from throughout the game's timespan (1337-1837). Using the US's straight-line borders (despite being relatively late in the game's timeframe) is much more logical than fabricating some borders where the natives might have established borders.

I'm convinced that the majority of pro-geography people just want the new world to be a blank slate for their own enjoyment, history be damned. I really cannot see any reason to not use the period-appropriate straight-line borders. They're the most certain, most familiar, and most consistent way to divide up the eastern US.

Those borders are not certain, consistent, and absolutely not period appropriate; what a weird thing to say.

A lot of people have been talking about how borders worked, and how Native Americans did not have borders in the modern sense of the word, I think many are missing that in 1337 most borders in the world worked just like they did in the Americas. Even in Europe, in a lot of places where borders did not follow a river or mountain range the border regions would be nebulous. Peace treaties would mention important cities that changed hands, but the areas in between would often remain ambiguous; they'd be called borderlands or marches, and states would compete for control over them. It would be hundreds of years before we arrived at the modern idea of borders, even in Europe.

My point is that saying "native americans didn't have borders so why bother?" might as well be said about the entire world. The point is we need these borders for gameplay reasons, on the whole world they have been established along the borders that existed at the time as accurately as possible, and where that information hasn't been available they have been established along geographical or cultural boundaries; why should the US be any different?

 

[Agricola20]

Yes? This isn't some malicious cover up of our motives, we've been pretty open about this. Paradox games are sandbox video games where you make your own history. They are not a history textbook. So yes, 100%, after 1337 history be damned! And I'll enjoy every second of subverting history, doing things never done before. Enjoying a video game is not bad, in fact, it's the whole point.

I understand the argument that people think the straight-lines are ugly, and I've arrived at the conclusion that it's the most valid reason to oppose them. Glad you seem to agree.

The big issue with "damn everything after 1337" is that many of the area borders worldwide are not faithful to the 1337 start date either. The map on every single level (locations, provinces, and areas) is mishmash of maps throughout the game's timeframe, balanced for gameplay. This begs the question, why should we use any historical borders at all? Why not carve up feudal Europe based solely on geography too?

Also, you cannot speak for everyone in favor of geographic borders. There's been several arguments on why PDX should not use the straight-line borders scattered through this thread. Some have been odd ("The straight lines remind me of American Exceptionalism"), and some have been outright wrong ("The natives would've followed geography to establish borders," and "The straight-line borders are anachronist").

Carving the US states as they existed in the early 19th century into a map depicting the 14th century state of things, as if the creation of those states were a historical inevitability even before the Hundred Years War started, seems a much more "history be damned" thing to do.
It's strange that this needs repeating, but you have to consider that for all we know there could be no England at all by the time the Americas are discovered in a game of Project Caesar. Maybe the Hundred Years War goes really bad for them and France conquers the Isles, the English languages dies out and turns into another French dialect, the Anglo-French empire opts to colonize the Caribbean and Brazil leaving North America to the Swedes and the Dutch, and now those American states on the map look really dumb.

You could repeat that argument for quite literally any nation/area in the world. The Old Swiss Confederacy is in its infancy in 1337. One bad war with the Austrians in 1338 could prevent the rise of Switzerland entirely, yet there would still be two areas on the map carrying the name "Switzerland" and using the non-existent Switzerland's borders. Should the Switzerland-named areas and their history-based borders be scrubbed from the map because there was no guarantee they would rise?

"Carving the US states as they existed in the early 19th century" is still more historically accurate than any geography-based map because the 18th/19th century borders actually existed. The geography-based borders would be a complete fabrication in hope that it might overlap with some Native border. Historical basis would be extremely limited.

Some level of historical determinism is necessary, otherwise you're drawing the entire map from scratch, all history be damned. This would be the only time that purely geographic borders make sense in my opinion.

 

[mothreed]

A lot of this looks very exciting! Here are a few friendly suggestions focused mainly on Atlantic Canada and Mi'kmaw representation on the map:

1. St. John's (eastern Newfoundland, northeastern tip of the easternmost peninsula) should probably be a natural harbour, possibly also the Bay of Islands on the western side of the island

2. Is there a design reason why the Mi'kmaq aren't an SoP? Imo there's enough evidence of pre-contact political and social organization (e.g., diplomatic and trading connections with other nations) to justify them being an SoP east of the Wolastoqiyik

3. There's a case for some limited rep of Mi'kmaw culture in southwestern Newfoundland (even in this early period). We have oral traditions attesting to pre-colonial presence there, and there is a body of Mi'kmaw scholarship refuting the colonial "Mi'kmaw mercenary" myth, which held that the Mi'kmaq only arrived in Newfoundland (Ktaqmkuk) with the French.

4. Newfoundland in the Provinces map: I'm unfamiliar with "Gosaoie" as a name for the south coast of Newfoundland. What's the source? "Eimasstukwek" is an unfamiliar spelling; we spell it Elmastukwek. "Long Range" province could be renamed "Mekapisk," which is the Mi'kmaw name.

5. Mainland Atlantic Canada in the Provinces map: Having both Kespek and Gaspé is a bit confusing, since Gaspé is just the French rendering of the Mi'kmaw Kespek. There are also some orthographical inconsistencies. "Epexiwitk" and "Agg Piktuk" are at odds with the orthographies used elsewhere for Mi'kmaw territory. The most common orthography is Smith-Francis, which doesn't have the letter x (going by it, Epexiwitk should be Epekwitk). "Agg Piktuk" is a bit odd (in S-F orthography it's "aq" rather than "agg") because it only makes sense in the context of the traditional district name "Epekwitk aq Piktuk" ("aq" just means "and"). Piktuk on its own is fine, since the province excludes Epekwitk.

Really appreciate how much effort and attention to detail to representing Mi'kmaw territory there is here already, though!

 

[Agricola20]

Those borders are not certain, consistent, and absolutely not period appropriate; what a weird thing to say.

A lot of people have been talking about how borders worked, and how Native Americans did not have borders in the modern sense of the word, I think many are missing that in 1337 most borders in the world worked just like they did in the Americas. Even in Europe, in a lot of places where borders did not follow a river or mountain range the border regions would be nebulous. Peace treaties would mention important cities that changed hands, but the areas in between would often remain ambiguous; they'd be called borderlands or marches, and states would compete for control over them. It would be hundreds of years before we arrived at the modern idea of borders, even in Europe.

My point is that saying "native americans didn't have borders so why bother?" might as well be said about the entire world. The point is we need these borders for gameplay reasons, on the whole world they have been established along the borders that existed at the time as accurately as possible, and where that information hasn't been available they have been established along geographical or cultural boundaries; why should the US be any different?

They are absolutely period appropriate, look up a map of the US in 1836. They're also the most certain (because they were repeatedly surveyed and mapped, unlike native borders), and the most consistent (because they're drawn entirely from one source, instead of mixing native borders and colonial/state borders).

Your second and third paragraphs are not what I'm arguing at all. The problem is that bunch of commentors here seem to be laboring under the false assumption that the current borders elsewhere in the world (particularly Europe) are a perfect recreation of borders in 1337. As you know, they're not, because they don't really exist in 1337. The location/province/area maps seem to be a mix of purported borders and mapped borders spanning the entire timeframe of the game. For example, the location/province border setup in southern Italy is based on an administrative map of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies circa the early 19th century.

I disagree with the people saying that borders in the eastern US need to be fabricated based on geography because there aren't any reliable maps for native polity borders in 1337. Instead, Paradox should be pulling borders from later, but still period appropriate, map sources just like they've done here already and in southern Italy and other places in the world.

The point is we need these borders for gameplay reasons, on the whole world they have been established along the borders that existed at the time as accurately as possible, and where that information hasn't been available they have been established along geographical or cultural boundaries; why should the US be any different?

From what I can see, Paradox has been establishing borders where period appropriate first and foremost and then creating geographical and cultural boundaries if period appropriate borders are not available. A source would be appreciated.

 

[TheDwarvenGuy2]

Probably a stupid question, but what are those two large impassable areas, 150km west of the Appalachians in both Kentucky en Tennessee?

View attachment 1223608

Thats the Appalachian plateau, basically a region thats just a continual jumble of small mountains with barely any space between them, unlike the more hospitable ridge and valley-style mountains that the rest of the Appalachians are made of.

 

[TheDwarvenGuy2]

If you decide not to make area borders be colonial-based, you should at least make it so that colonial borders could be made via province borders since colonial nation assignment is only done on a province-by-province basis, so that way if someone wants to replicate the 13 colonies they can. The lines don't have to be straight but they can approximate the borders

 

[MTGian]

It's not inconsistent not to include modern borders, if you go look at the feedback thread for Poland, there was a big fuss kicked up by certain German players about how they could no longer recreate the borders of Prussia in 1815 because the devs had opted to shape the Polish provinces after the borders that the Polish had used.

In my opinion it makes a lot of sense to prioiritise the existing borderse of an existing culture rather than the borders that would be imposed on that culture hundreds of years later, and this is consistent with the approach the devs have taken so far.


Those borders are not certain, consistent, and absolutely not period appropriate; what a weird thing to say.

A lot of people have been talking about how borders worked, and how Native Americans did not have borders in the modern sense of the word, I think many are missing that in 1337 most borders in the world worked just like they did in the Americas. Even in Europe, in a lot of places where borders did not follow a river or mountain range the border regions would be nebulous. Peace treaties would mention important cities that changed hands, but the areas in between would often remain ambiguous; they'd be called borderlands or marches, and states would compete for control over them. It would be hundreds of years before we arrived at the modern idea of borders, even in Europe.

My point is that saying "native americans didn't have borders so why bother?" might as well be said about the entire world. The point is we need these borders for gameplay reasons, on the whole world they have been established along the borders that existed at the time as accurately as possible, and where that information hasn't been available they have been established along geographical or cultural boundaries; why should the US be any different?

This is actually a new proposal that is different from using geographic boundaries. You are proposing using Native American borders.
(Unless you are saying that Native American borders are geographic boundaries, but that wasn't clear from your post)

At the end of the day, it is a judgement call for what each individual cares about the most. As I see it, there are four proposals:

1) Use exact historic colonial borders.
2) Use a hybrid of historic colonial borders and geographic boundaries (and maybe Native American borders).
3) Use 100% geographic boundaries.
4) Use Native American borders. (if different from 3)

I would rank them:
#1) 2 - hybrid

I actually like the hybrid approach best. Something that resembles historic colonial borders, but would also represent plausible borders for any European colonizer. Maybe easier said than done, but I think that would be the most agreeable to the largest number of players. It's a compromise. Players who want an exact re-creation can get something that resembles it, while those who want to colonize as the Dutch or French (or whoever) will end up with something that is different, but plausible. As far as implementation, we've already seen a few proposals in this thread for where the historic colonize borders don't make sense. Fix those oddities and you should have something that is different, but not terribly far from history.

#2) 1 - exact historic

I rate the ability to create something that resembles the historic borders highly (I know others do not). While I like the hybrid approach that could simulate where any colonizer would plausibly put the borders, the actual borders are second so that you can re-create the historic situation.

#3) 3 - geographic
#4) 4 - Native American

Between geographic boundaries and Native American borders (assuming they are different), I've got geographic boundaries above Native American borders. Why? Because my assumption is that North America will end up with European colonies in most games. I wouldn't design the borders for the unusual circumstance where Native Americans repel the European colonizers and stay dominant. I would design the borders for what is most likely to happen.

That isn't to say that I won't play as Native Americans. If the Iroquois Confederacy gets added as playable, I will absolutely play a game as the Iroquois. I grew up in Upstate New York and have always thought the Iroquois were badass. But I wouldn't draw the borders for when I play that one game.

My two cents.

 

[Tahami Tsunami]

Guess who's back!

@YashaCarry
I'm a fan of how you structured your post about Settled Countries to add so I'd like to utilize that as well.

I obviously agree that Etowah, Cofitachequi, Ocute, Joara, Guale, Escampaba, Pacaha, Chisca, the Caddoan settlements, etc. should be Settled Countries. As others have said, it's hard to look at their monumental/public works, know of their centralization of power, know that many of these polities were at their zenith in 1337 and think that it isn't enough.

Settled Country	Description	Qualifications as settled
S’edav Va’aki	A massive Hohokam polity encompassing the Salt and Gila River valleys (modern Phoenix, Arizona) and the 120,000 people living there. Would include other large sites like Mesa Grande (Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va’aki), Pueblo Los Muertos, and Casa Grande (Siwañ Waʼa Ki).	Monumental multistory buildings. Public works like ballcourts, plazas, and irrigation canals. O’odham oral histories mention leaders like Sial Teu-utak Sivan and Oam Nui Sivan.
Paquime	An important polity located in northern Mexico that served as a trade link between Mesoamerica and the rest of North America. Live macaws from Mesoamerican were brought here and traded for their feathers. After a fire around 1340, their smaller buildings were rebuilt as multistory apartments.	Multistory apartment buildings. Public works like ballcourts, plazas, and an intricate water management system that included a sewage system.
Kawulk	A polity centered on Cerro de Trincheras. According to this page, the name of the Caborca area comes from Kawulk which in Pima means “hill with rocks and boulders.” It was the most fitting name I could find. A commercial center that specialized in making shell jewelry. There are connected sites on the Gulf of California at Desemboque and Puerto Libertad.	Public works include 900 terraces built into the volcanic hills for agriculture.
Koun’nde	Koun’nde is the Apache word for the Tonto Basin. These are the Salado culture sites and cliff dwellings around Roosevelt Lake. The capital may have been the Cline Terrace Mound site.	Monumental architecture.
ʼHaktlakva	The Yavapai name for Tuzigoot, a large pueblo with 110 rooms built by the Sinagua people in the Verde Valley (Matk’amvaha). Very close to the Montezuma Castle cliff dwellings.	Monumental architechture.
Mäi’povi	Better known as Kinishba, a massive pueblo in 2 major apartment blocks. It had major multistory buildings containing around 600 rooms that housed about 1,500 people.	Multistory apartment blocks and plazas.
Kin Tiel	Not only another large pueblo, but one of the largest in the Southwest outside of Chaco Canyon!	3 story apartments consisting of over 1300 rooms surrounding a few plazas.
Homol’ovi	A cluster of Hopi settlements containing around 1200 rooms and 40 kivas.	Monumental architechture.
Awat’ovi	A large Hopi pueblo that was unfortunately attacked by other Hopis due to Awat’ovi’s acceptance of the Spanish Christians who weren’t exactly respectful to the Hopi religion.	Monumental architechture.
Hawikku	A large Zuni pueblo. Wikipedia lists the founding as 1400, but other sites list it as in the 1200s.	Monumental architechture.
Cueloze	Native name of the Las Humanas pueblo at Gran Quivira.	Monumental architechture.
Cicuye	Known today as Pecos Pueblo. A major trade center among the Puebloans.	Monumental architechture.

 

[GastonEstBonne]

The big issue with "damn everything after 1337" is that many of the area borders worldwide are not faithful to the 1337 start date either. The map on every single level (locations, provinces, and areas) is mishmash of maps throughout the game's timeframe, balanced for gameplay. This begs the question, why should we use any historical borders at all? Why not carve up feudal Europe based solely on geography too?

First off I don't worship consistency, I (in the massive minority here I'm aware) do not care at all if Paradox is consistent region to region (in my very personal opinion I think this game would be way better if they threw consistency out the window and customized each region to what it's base wants and what gameplay needs). I think you're strawmanning my position a little bit because maybe I wasn't completely clear.

Let me be super specific. I think all the borders across the world should look nice and smooth with no harsh exact straight lines (Also no super weird panhandles like in Maryland or West Virginia). I'm perfectly okay with having locations approximate state borders especially when they follow geography. In fact, I asked the devs to consider approximating other colonial boundaries of the period (New France, abolished British colonies, New Netherland, proposed colonies, West Florida etc). I also want locations to be drawn on geographical boundaries wherever possible. So basically I want a balance where American borders (including alternate state borders where possible), historical colonial borders (including alternate borders where possible) and geographical borders are all possible for the player as much as possible, in regards to location boundaries in particular. This is consistent with me saying the game is a sandbox, as that is what this video game should be, a box (map) filled with sand (locations) that you can mold into various shapes.

In regards to areas and up in particular, because they are static I prefer them being geographically based and not using American state names like Virginia which would be super awkward if you're the Haudenosaunee and you've successfully united the east coast and repulsed the Europeans. Why would your land be named after the virginity of some foreign woman? Although I'm okay with more ambiguous names like Cascadia or Acadia(na) to be used. As long as it isn't immediately obvious that the name is European I think it's fine to use (i.e. Carolina, Virginia, Louisana, Georgia, etc)

Also, you cannot speak for everyone in favor of geographic borders. There's been several arguments on why PDX should not use the straight-line borders scattered through this thread. Some have been odd ("The straight lines remind me of American Exceptionalism"), and some have been outright wrong ("The natives would've followed geography to establish borders," and "The straight-line borders are anachronist").

I never claimed to speak for everyone. I'm sure people have used bad arguments. Although your examples of outright wrong, are not wrong, but I don't care enough to argue because that wasn't my argument. Also, they're allowed to not like borders that remind them of American Exceptionalism even if that's really not a serviceable argument. They can make a mod if it really bothers them. Considering how sparse the Americas are I'll probably wait until there's a good mod that fills them with tags to play it.

 

[ArVass]

1. I see that you can't go around the Arctic Sea, which makes it impossible find the "Northwestern Passage". Will there still be content/event chains about sending out an Explorer to try and find it?
2. Will inland ice shields like in some places of the mountains of arctic North America, and internal Greenland, be represented graphically on the map? So that they will be covered in snow and ice all year-round, instead of only at winter
3. Will impassable seas in the arctic similarly have year-round partial ice cover?

 

[GastonEstBonne]

Found this which could be a good name for a Welsh Canada
Found this which is good for an Irish middle America)
Here's some regional names that could be used
West Virginia, if an equivalent still exists could be called Kanawha as that was one of the early proposed names for the state and sounds a lot better.

Boundaries like these for example

I bring more example maps...

Map is bad, but look at Sagadahoc and the western edge of the colonies

From here

Cherokee borders were recognized by the US supreme court

deseret

north south partition was proposed in 1850 due to slavery, a little late, but could include. Northern half would be called Shasta or Klamath (not Jefferson) as those were the proposed names in the 1850s.

proposed state of Lincoln

proposed columbia and later Lincoln

proposed Westmoreland state

this east-west split is historical, but ugly, some kind of east-west split could be possible though

I'm not saying every last one of these have to be possible, just want to get the juices following. There were proposed boundaries that were more 'natural.'

 

[WoodchuckHunter]

The Maumee location should be wetlands. The entire area was known as “The Great Black Swamp” and wasn’t drained until well into the 19th century. I’ve been waiting for this for months!

 

[Merrivale]

Rivers make for decent international borders, yes, but for terrible internal borders whose purpose should be to ease in the administration and economic development of the state, precisely because major cities are likely to be founded on the side of significant rivers (and hence end up in the edge of the internal borders). Ideally internal subdivisions should attempt to resemble areas of shared economic interests (at least in places where cultural differences are not a concern).

Indeed, by the rivers make borders logic Paris should be split into two different provinces because it is on both sides of a river.

 

[ArVass]

@Pavía,
1. have you considered adding some more ivory locations in some fish zones, to represent whaling that was prevalent within the time frame?
And have you considered adding whale oil as a raw good, which was one of the main reasons for whale hunting towards the ends of the timeframe? Although in that case you'd be better off having just a whales resource that can be turned into either ivory or oil.

2. do you have content for the Inuit migration and replacement of the Dorset culture? Since their actual migration route is obstructed by a massive wasteland (although it might be worth it to consider adding a mix of locations and corridors through Nunavut), it seems impossible for Inuits to naturally reach Nunavik like they historically did, without special content/intervention

 

[Sovetskysoyuz]

I agree with the preceding posts that recommend representing the Haudenosaunee nations as settled, as well as some of those in the Pacific Northwest. IMO it is preferable to lean toward treating societies that only meet some of the Settled Nation criteria as such rather than have such a vast expanse of unplayable polities.

The other option was the Rideau Canal between Kingston on Lake Ontario and what is now Ottawa on the Ottawa River. Finished in 1832, it only has a width of 8 m and a depth of 1.5 m. The Ottawa River enters the St Lawrence River at Montreal so you could use the Rideau Canal together with the Ottawa and St Lawrence Rivers to travel between Lake Ontario and Quebec City or beyond.

The canals built to allow travel between some of the Great Lakes and between the Great Lakes and the Ocean were in the period the game covers not large enough to allow passage by ocean going ships.

Just wanted to add that the Rideau Canal alone only made it possible to get from Lake Ontario to Ottawa by boat. Getting to the lower Saint Lawrence also required the Grenville, Chute-à-Blondeau, and Carillon Canals (to bypass the Long Sault rapids on the Ottawa) and the Lachine Canal (to bypass the Lachine Rapids at Montreal). These canals were only finished in 1843, so navigability from Ottawa to Montreal is outside the game period.

 

[PoultryLaser]

I'd like to make a couple of (imperfect) suggestions for locations in the central Oregon area. Currently, there are two locations listed as Crook and Grant, presumably for present-day Crook County and Grant County. Both are named after Civil War generals.

I'd propose renaming Crook to Ochoco, after the nearby Ochoco National Forest and Ochoco Mountains. "Ochoco" is believed to mean "willow" in Northern Paiute. It's not a historical settlement, but it seems a bit more authentic in 1337 than Crook. "Prineville" is probably the best colonial name for the location, but I would also suggest "Fossil," which is the seat of nearby Wheeler County and speaks to the stunning geological heritage of the region.

For Grant, I would suggest "Mah-Hah," which is what the Cayuse people called the John Day River. Again, it would be a name taken from a prominent natural feature rather than a permanent settlement. "Canyon City" is the most logical colonial name for the location, but I personally would love you to consider "Greenhorn." Greenhorn is effectively a ghost town today but has a fascinating history (including the fact that the town's jail was once stolen and the town is also the center of a strange legal case, Town of Greenhorn v. Baker County).

Arguably, the names of Grant and nearby Seneca should be swapped as well. Today, Seneca is a town in southern Grant County. As it's presented here, Seneca is the location north of Grant.

While I'm at it, if Seneca does become the southern location, it should perhaps be renamed. The town of Seneca is named after Oregon judge Seneca Smith, rather than a Native American designation. If the location currently named Grant is name-swapped, the best name I can find is Tonowama, a Paiute name for Harney Lake. The best colonial name is probably "Burns," but "Harney" could also work. Modern Harney County is bigger than six states and the cattle outnumber the human population 14-to-1, so it's very sparsely settled, even today.

In summary: I would like to request several central Oregon location name changes. I believe Crook should become Ochoco (and then Prineville or Fossil if colonized), Seneca should become Mah-Hah (and then Canyon City or Greenhorn if colonized), and Grant should become Tonowama (and then Burns or Harney if colonized).

 

[Chieron]

Indeed, by the rivers make borders logic Paris should be split into two different provinces because it is on both sides of a river.

The difference here is that Paris is on a ford / bridge, making claiming and accessing both sides possible. It's the raison d'etré for the city after all. And technically, Paris is on a rather small island in the Seine. Major cities also often are located on rivers, but often did not cover both sides of their river crossing. That is, the city was clearly on one side of the river, with only a minor brigdehead on the other side. It is not rare that beyond the brigdehead, there is a new province/country/admin. division.

Rivers make good borders in general, and so do mountains or dense forests. But neither are 100% forced borders. There is some freedom with assigning locations here.

 

[Merrivale]

The difference here is that Paris is on a ford / bridge, making claiming and accessing both sides possible. It's the raison d'etré for the city after all. And technically, Paris is on a rather small island in the Seine. Major cities also often are located on rivers, but often did not cover both sides of their river crossing. That is, the city was clearly on one side of the river, with only a minor brigdehead on the other side. It is not rare that beyond the brigdehead, there is a new province/country/admin. division.

Rivers make good borders in general, and so do mountains or dense forests. But neither are 100% forced borders. There is some freedom with assigning locations here.

Yes, but if you look at a map of French provinces, you see that the rivers form basically no basis for creating internal divisions. This makes sense if you stop and think through it. Yes, rivers are frequently a good dividing line. But they are also a natural point for cities, and cities quite simply do not usually exist right on boundary lines. Whomever controls the city will expand enormous effort to control the surrounding area to make the city safe. So European borders, while they sometimes do use rivers, many times do not, because the underlying provinces that form these nations were formed by leaders who wanted security around their main towns.

So to bring this back on-topic, people chasing "pretty borders" who want to use the rivers of the eastern United States to redraw the areas away from what happened historically don't, in my opinion, have historical precedent from around the world as a justification. In some cases rivers do form boundaries. In the United States it's pretty easy to argue that the use of rivers to form state boundaries has been a colossal error in many cases but just about all of our state boundaries are stupid so hard to pick out just one problem (and the effects here are so much more pronounced than in most countries).

Anyway, four French rivers:

The Seine:

The Rhone:

The Loire:

Only the Rhine, a natural border if there ever was one, actually forms a lot of borders (it's a bit hard to see here, sorry, but much of that purple line is dividing internal provinces in Germany, and of course forms a border in France). So I think it's fair to say that rivers play a role, but really only the very largest rivers and even then, not always.

 

[VinceDreux]

I apologize if someone already said this, but I'd like to list some real historic Irish (Gaelic) and Scottish (Gaelic) names for some locations/provinces/areas:

Irish Gaelic:
- Cape Spear / Baile Sheáin
- Cape Race / Ceapach Éidín
- Placentia / Cill Bhríde
- Checagou / Siceagó
- Mannahatta / Nua-Eabhrac
- Shackamaxon / Filideilfia
- Shawmut / Bostún

Scottish Gaelic:
- Cape Spear / Baile Naoimh Eòin
- Qospemk / Siùdaig Mhór
- Chéticamp / Baile Inbhir Nis or An Sithean
- Kloskapewikruk* / Hogama
- Askataliank / Am Pòn Mòr
- Apaqtukowatek / Loch Laomainn
- Ingonish / Acarsaid Nèill
- Sipuk / Baile Shidni
- Antigonish / Am Baile Mòr
- Pictou / Baile Phiogto
- Canso / Baile Mhainisdeir
- E'se'katik / An Caolas Leathann
- Wetewa'toqwik* / Halafacs or an t-Àrd-Bhaile
- Toniato/Kahwenoke (don't know exactly which location should be south-east of Ottawa) / Siorrachd Gleanna Garadh
- Cant't quite see its name, but the location north of Saugeen and west of Echarita* / Siorramachd Bhruis
- Elsiktut / An Tuirc
- Stadacona / Cathair na Cuibèige
- Calgary** / Calgarraidh
- Vancouver** / Bhancùbhair
- Stornoway** / Steòrnabhagh
- Magdalen Islands** / Eilean nan Magdaileanan
- Toronto** / Torònto
- Oromocto (I suppose that's Fredericton?) / Baile-feardorcha
- Winnipeg** / Uinnipèg
- Victoria (I couldn't see the location's name) / Bhioctoria
- Regina** / Reginea
- Anticosti / Antacòstai
- Edmonton** / Eadmonton
- Yellowknife** / Sgian-bhuidhe
- Whitehorse** / Each-bàn
- Iqaluit** / Icialuat
- Mannahatta / Eabhraig Nuadh

* I couldn't quite see the full name so the spelling could be wrong

** I couldn't exactly find the location on the map so I wrote the modern day name

Clearly if you want you can dig deeper and literally translate the name of places such as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Antonio etc., but the ones I listed are actual official names of colonies/towns/cities.

 

[Ammerländer]

Looking at the SOP map, I think every name ends in people. This takes up a lot of space. I think the map would be a lot more readable, if it was just the names without "... people", especially for SOPs occupying a smaller area.