Can you keep the old version archived? Just so we can see how it evolved over time
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Habors to my sugestion:
# -25 - Falésias - Sul do Chile
# 0 - Costa Plana - Barcelona
# 25 - Baía - Palma de Maiorca
# 50 - Porto Fluvial - Sevilha
# 75 - Baía Profunda - San Sebastián
#100 - Estuário Fechado Muito Defensável - Ferrol
South to North:
Rio Grande - 75
Pelotas - 50
Camaquã - 0
São Jerônimo - 50
Porto Alegre - 100
São José - 25
Conceição do Arroio (Osório) - 0
Criciúma - 0
Laguna - 75
Desterro (Florianópolis) - 25
Blumenau (at Itajaí) - 50
São Francisco - 50
Guaratuba - 75
Paranaguá - 100
Cananéia - 50
Iguape - 50
Itanhaém - 0
São Vicente - 100
São Sebastião - 0
Paraty - 25
Itaguaí (at Mangaratiba) - 75
Rio de Janeiro - 100
Jacutinga - 100
Magé - 100
Niterói - 100
Cabo Frio - 100
Capivary - 25
Macaé - 0
Campos - 0
Nossa Senhora do Patrocínio (Itapemirim) - 0
Guarapari - 50
Espírito Santo (Vitória) - 100
Serra (at Vitória) - 75
Coutins (Linhares) - 50
São Matesu - 0
Cricaré - 0
Viçosa - 0
Caravelas - 50
Prado - 0
Porto Seguro - 100
Canavieiras - 0
Olivença - 0
Ilhéus - 100
Maraú - 100
Camanu - 100
Cairu - 100
Jaguaripe - 50
Itaparica - 100
Salvador - 100
Cachoeira - 100
Santo Amaro - 100
Mata de Saõ João - 0
Conde - 0
São Cristovão - 50
Aracajú - 50
Japaratuba - 0
Penedo - 50
Alagoas - 50
Maceió - 25
Porto Calvo (at Japaratinga) - 50
Rio Formoso - 50
Recife - 50
Olinda - 0
Itamaracá - 50
Paraíba (João Pessoa) - 50
Mamanguape - 0
I'm tring to be as cautious as possible, but every Brazilian city has a wide and protected mouth. What to do?
Will be updated.
# -25 - Falésias - Sul do Chile
# 0 - Costa Plana - Barcelona
# 25 - Baía - Palma de Maiorca
# 50 - Porto Fluvial - Sevilha
# 75 - Baía Profunda - San Sebastián
#100 - Estuário Fechado Muito Defensável - Ferrol
South to North:
Rio Grande - 75
Pelotas - 50
Camaquã - 0
São Jerônimo - 50
Porto Alegre - 100
São José - 25
Conceição do Arroio (Osório) - 0
Criciúma - 0
Laguna - 75
Desterro (Florianópolis) - 25
Blumenau (at Itajaí) - 50
São Francisco - 50
Guaratuba - 75
Paranaguá - 100
Cananéia - 50
Iguape - 50
Itanhaém - 0
São Vicente - 100
São Sebastião - 0
Paraty - 25
Itaguaí (at Mangaratiba) - 75
Rio de Janeiro - 100
Jacutinga - 100
Magé - 100
Niterói - 100
Cabo Frio - 100
Capivary - 25
Macaé - 0
Campos - 0
Nossa Senhora do Patrocínio (Itapemirim) - 0
Guarapari - 50
Espírito Santo (Vitória) - 100
Serra (at Vitória) - 75
Coutins (Linhares) - 50
São Matesu - 0
Cricaré - 0
Viçosa - 0
Caravelas - 50
Prado - 0
Porto Seguro - 100
Canavieiras - 0
Olivença - 0
Ilhéus - 100
Maraú - 100
Camanu - 100
Cairu - 100
Jaguaripe - 50
Itaparica - 100
Salvador - 100
Cachoeira - 100
Santo Amaro - 100
Mata de Saõ João - 0
Conde - 0
São Cristovão - 50
Aracajú - 50
Japaratuba - 0
Penedo - 50
Alagoas - 50
Maceió - 25
Porto Calvo (at Japaratinga) - 50
Rio Formoso - 50
Recife - 50
Olinda - 0
Itamaracá - 50
Paraíba (João Pessoa) - 50
Mamanguape - 0
I'm tring to be as cautious as possible, but every Brazilian city has a wide and protected mouth. What to do?
Will be updated.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Hey Pavía, I'm not the one you answered to but I'd like to say that the work you guys did on the map is truly impressive, and I can see the effort put into recreating the region, cultures, language and religions. I also understand how that, at first glance, making the Atlantic Forest a wasteland, mimicking the treatment given to the Amazonian Forest, might seem like a sensible choice. However, I believe the premise behind this decision was mistaken, as the Atlantic Forest isn’t analogous to the Amazonian Forest. That is, I don’t think turning most of the former Atlantic Forest into a wasteland is the most accurate choice as the hardships transversing the Amazon are not the same as those of transversing the Atlantic Forest.Hi. Just wanted to let you know that we had been reading this thread prior to today's Tinto Maps. As the hot topic is the extension of Mata Atlàntica, these have been my words about it:
This means that its rework will be as good as the feedback we receive, so we kindly ask and encourage you to help us portray more adequately the region by posting your feedback and proposals, with sources and maps if possible, in the Tinto Maps thread (although it's perfectly fine if you discuss it first, in order to share knowledge and refine your proposal, OFC!).
Historically, many of the regions now marked as wastelands were not uninhabitable expanses but rather dynamic areas with significant activity, including the establishment of colonies and historical routes. These routes included those used by groups that could be described today as paramilitary or pre-military organizations, hierarchical entities of organized violence, which in game terms will probably be represented as military units.
Making those regions untraversable seems at odds with the spirit of some other decisions you guys have made, such as the treatment of the Darien Gap. As a result, many colonies and historical routes where quasi-armies passed (for example, bandeirante routes: https://atlas.fgv.br/marcos/bandeiras-e-bandeirantes/mapas/bandeiras-e-entradas) are poorly represented. While it’s fair to reflect the challenges of traversing the region, completely erasing its historical role and potential for development seems to oversimplify its importance.
I understand this may sound like a repetitive request but I truly believe it’s for the best.
- 7
Ok! While you're doing that, i feel it's interesting suggesting for Minas Gerais to be made into an Area and uniting Rio de Janeiro and Espirito Santo into one Area? I made a quick edit, showing how it would look.
Some Harbors:
Fortaleza - 50
Acaraú - 25
Aquiraz - 35
(I'm not good with values, so if you think these should be something else, do say so)
Attachments
- 2
Sorry, but I fink:
Fortaleza - 25
Acaraú - 0
Aquiraz - 0
Aboult Minas Gerais, it's more modern building, that would have 74 locations, so much.
Last edited:
An elegant solution, but simultaneously a very complicated one to implement, would be something I'd call "dynamic wastelands", where, depending on the "cultural technology" of a society, certain locations are inaccessible. This is especially egregious in jungles and the steppes, where the game's representation of them is more that they're these almost uninhabitable, terrible places - and they are, to some. Russian infantry will have a bad time in the Kazakh steppe - but for the Cossacks, it's just slightly more unpleasant.
This would actually introduce asymmetry to gameplay. Why should the Kongo not be allowed to move their troops around central Africa? They're familiar with this biome. And meanwhile their European attackers are forced to stick to the coast, you may simply outmaneuver them by utilizing lands that are, to the Europeans, wastelands.
The Amazon is very similar - I say, do away with it as a wasteland entirely. We already know that it was considerably more populated than previously believed, and hosted agrarian societies that should be, at the very least SoPs (caveat: we have no idea who they actually were). Same thing for the Atlantic forest - it should be accessible to the natives, but not the outsiders (until they adapt).
After all, why would a South American jungle tribe not be able to cross the Darien? It's not any different than the rest of the Colombian Pacific littoral. What to the highlander or the European is a putrid jungle not worth doing anything with, to a lowlander polity would just be an area of forest.
This would make the game very realistic, and very dynamic. I imagine it could be done by giving each location something akin to Victoria 2's Life Rating, but multidimensional based on the terrain and climate values, where some states/cultures get pre-unlocked technology allowing them to exploit this. If you cheese an African playthrough and conquer Europe, what is "wasteland" will be different to you than what it will be to Europeans.
- 2
- 1
Harbor are fine.
Minas could be a bit tweaked to be smaller in sizer or density, but it's absence as an Area is a bit problematic, it's a deeply relevant state during the period of the game, even more than Espírito Santo or Porto Seguro.
I figured I would post this here before posting it in the main SA thread in order to get some extra feedback before.
Going directly to the point, here's what I propose for the biomes in Brazil (more details below):
1 - Woods
2 - Forest
3 - Desert
4 - Grasslands
5 - Jungle
Main sources:
Brazillian map of biomes (sadly, couldn't find a more detailed one)
More detailed Caatinga map of biomes (thank you so much for that, Ulfreig)
Note that imprecisions could arise from the fact that I just had those maps side by side with the location map of Paradox and just guessed where the borders of each biome would be.
I would also like to note that Paradox's map is not at all that different, so their sources were clearly good. The main differences will arise from me in some points wanting to be somewhat overzealous to represent a few things (like the Lençóis Maranhenses, which inclusion could be debatable), and from what I believe to have been a core misunderstanding of Brazillian biomes.
One of the more obvious one is the Mata Atlântica, but since the issue here is mostly related to the Wasteland areas and not to the representation of the forest cover itself, I will let other people to comment on that, as my focus in this post is just on the biomes themselves.
The other issue is with the Cerrado biome. I can see how the fact that it is a Savanah-type biome would make one want to characterize it as Grasslands, but it's far from that. The Cerrado is characterized by a dense concentration of medium-sized bushes, which often make it as hard to traverse as any other Brazillian forests. I have therefore opted to suggest it be represented as Woods, with Forests being present in the transition zones with Jungle areas, and Grasslandas in the transition zones with the Caatinga. I have also treated those areas where it's not clear to me what biome prevails over the other as transition zones (which can be specially noted in the state of São Paulo and Goias).
Regarding the Caatinga, I'm not sure if the issue with how it was represented came from a misunderstanding of how it differs from the Cerrado, or of how diverse it can be. In any case, I have opted to represent it as a mix of Sparse and Grasslands, with the Grasslands being more present in those areas which the indicated source for the Caatinga biome pointed as being majorly covered by "Decidius Thorn Woodland", with little presence of other types of vegetation coverage. Grasslands were used elsewhere, and Woods in the transition areas.
The Pampas I have kept mostly the same way as Paradox - they are as stereotypical a Grassland region as you can get.
I have touched little in the Amazon as well, with the exception of the transition zones with the Cerrado, which I think would be best represented as Forest (something that Paradox has done, but not to the extend I think the presented sources point to). I do have a vague memory of the Marajó island having a more specific biome configuration, though I couldn't find any sources on that. Would appreciate if someone could add to it.
Finally, regarding the Pantanal, I have not at all touched it, as it is characterized as Wasteland and I don't see much reason to change it, since it was neither inhabited by large indegenous people groups (at least afaik), used to transport large armies or settled by the Europeans in the game's time period.
Going directly to the point, here's what I propose for the biomes in Brazil (more details below):
1 - Woods
2 - Forest
3 - Desert
4 - Grasslands
5 - Jungle
Main sources:
Brazillian map of biomes (sadly, couldn't find a more detailed one)
More detailed Caatinga map of biomes (thank you so much for that, Ulfreig)
Note that imprecisions could arise from the fact that I just had those maps side by side with the location map of Paradox and just guessed where the borders of each biome would be.
I would also like to note that Paradox's map is not at all that different, so their sources were clearly good. The main differences will arise from me in some points wanting to be somewhat overzealous to represent a few things (like the Lençóis Maranhenses, which inclusion could be debatable), and from what I believe to have been a core misunderstanding of Brazillian biomes.
One of the more obvious one is the Mata Atlântica, but since the issue here is mostly related to the Wasteland areas and not to the representation of the forest cover itself, I will let other people to comment on that, as my focus in this post is just on the biomes themselves.
The other issue is with the Cerrado biome. I can see how the fact that it is a Savanah-type biome would make one want to characterize it as Grasslands, but it's far from that. The Cerrado is characterized by a dense concentration of medium-sized bushes, which often make it as hard to traverse as any other Brazillian forests. I have therefore opted to suggest it be represented as Woods, with Forests being present in the transition zones with Jungle areas, and Grasslandas in the transition zones with the Caatinga. I have also treated those areas where it's not clear to me what biome prevails over the other as transition zones (which can be specially noted in the state of São Paulo and Goias).
Regarding the Caatinga, I'm not sure if the issue with how it was represented came from a misunderstanding of how it differs from the Cerrado, or of how diverse it can be. In any case, I have opted to represent it as a mix of Sparse and Grasslands, with the Grasslands being more present in those areas which the indicated source for the Caatinga biome pointed as being majorly covered by "Decidius Thorn Woodland", with little presence of other types of vegetation coverage. Grasslands were used elsewhere, and Woods in the transition areas.
The Pampas I have kept mostly the same way as Paradox - they are as stereotypical a Grassland region as you can get.
I have touched little in the Amazon as well, with the exception of the transition zones with the Cerrado, which I think would be best represented as Forest (something that Paradox has done, but not to the extend I think the presented sources point to). I do have a vague memory of the Marajó island having a more specific biome configuration, though I couldn't find any sources on that. Would appreciate if someone could add to it.
Finally, regarding the Pantanal, I have not at all touched it, as it is characterized as Wasteland and I don't see much reason to change it, since it was neither inhabited by large indegenous people groups (at least afaik), used to transport large armies or settled by the Europeans in the game's time period.
- 1
I've posted this on the South America map reveal, but I'll be posting here as well, with some addons
I think that the Paraíba location should have a suitable natural harbour. Our colonisation is very unique in the sense that our capital and first city (today's João Pessoa, then Filipéia de Nossa Senhora das Neves) was colonised from the river Paraíba, not from the coast. To this day, one of the best ports in the Northeast is situated on the Paraíba river estuary at Cabedelo, where the river widens and has ample space for ships of all sizes.
Filipéia was first colonised in 1585, with the construction of the Fort of Santa Catarina in today's Cabedelo at the year of 1589. There were plans since Pedro II's reign to build a commercial harbour at Cabedelo, which denotes the suitability before modern harbour-building techniques.
Recife/Olinda in Pernambuco is also a major commercial port since the early days of the Portuguese colonisation, and underwent Dutch colonial/military occupation for a good time, serving as the capital of Dutch Brazil during the 1600s. It is both strategically located at the coast fo the Northeast, being a hub for the Triangle Trade and also an entrepot for those voyages toward São Salvador and the rest of Brazil. The coast of Pernambuco also hosts the major harbour of Suape, some 40 clicks south of Recife, further showcasing the suitability of the location of the Caxanga/Recife location.
If I were to judge the suitability of each, I'd go for 25-50 for Paraíba (Parahyba in older orthography) and 75 for Recife.
History of Paraíba - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil
en.wikipedia.org
I think that the Paraíba location should have a suitable natural harbour. Our colonisation is very unique in the sense that our capital and first city (today's João Pessoa, then Filipéia de Nossa Senhora das Neves) was colonised from the river Paraíba, not from the coast. To this day, one of the best ports in the Northeast is situated on the Paraíba river estuary at Cabedelo, where the river widens and has ample space for ships of all sizes.
Filipéia was first colonised in 1585, with the construction of the Fort of Santa Catarina in today's Cabedelo at the year of 1589. There were plans since Pedro II's reign to build a commercial harbour at Cabedelo, which denotes the suitability before modern harbour-building techniques.
Recife/Olinda in Pernambuco is also a major commercial port since the early days of the Portuguese colonisation, and underwent Dutch colonial/military occupation for a good time, serving as the capital of Dutch Brazil during the 1600s. It is both strategically located at the coast fo the Northeast, being a hub for the Triangle Trade and also an entrepot for those voyages toward São Salvador and the rest of Brazil. The coast of Pernambuco also hosts the major harbour of Suape, some 40 clicks south of Recife, further showcasing the suitability of the location of the Caxanga/Recife location.
If I were to judge the suitability of each, I'd go for 25-50 for Paraíba (Parahyba in older orthography) and 75 for Recife.
History of Paraíba - Wikipedia
Porto de Cabedelo – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre
https://www.portservices.com.br/assets/docs/Cabedelo.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil
Suape Port - Wikipedia
- 7
- 1
Yes, Paraíba would have 50 and Recife I don't know, because Capibaribe river look like be shallow at the mouth, turning the islands unsable to turn it a good port, as well many breakwaters were built.Postei isso na revelação do mapa da América do Sul, mas postarei aqui também, com alguns complementos
Acho que a localidade da Paraíba deveria ter um porto natural adequado. Nossa colonização é muito única no sentido de que nossa capital e primeira cidade (hoje João Pessoa, então Filipéia de Nossa Senhora das Neves) foi colonizada a partir do rio Paraíba, não da costa. Até hoje, um dos melhores portos do Nordeste está situado no estuário do rio Paraíba, em Cabedelo, onde o rio se alarga e tem amplo espaço para navios de todos os tamanhos.
Filipéia foi colonizada pela primeira vez em 1585, com a construção do Forte de Santa Catarina, no atual Cabedelo, no ano de 1589. Havia planos desde o reinado de D. Pedro II para construir um porto comercial em Cabedelo, o que denota a adequação diante das técnicas modernas de construção de portos.
Recife/Olinda em Pernambuco também é um importante porto comercial desde os primeiros dias da colonização portuguesa, e sofreu ocupação colonial/militar holandesa por um bom tempo, servindo como capital do Brasil holandês durante os anos 1600. Está estrategicamente localizado na costa do Nordeste, sendo um centro para o Comércio do Triângulo e também um entreposto para aquelas viagens em direção a São Salvador e o resto do Brasil. A costa de Pernambuco também abriga o principal porto de Suape, a cerca de 40 cliques ao sul de Recife, demonstrando ainda mais a adequação da localização da localidade Caxanga/Recife.
Se eu tivesse que julgar a adequação de cada um, eu diria 25-50 para Paraíba (Parahyba na ortografia antiga) e 75 para Recife.
História da Paraíba - Wikipédia
Porto de Cabedelo – Wikipédia, uma enciclopédia livre
https://www.portservices.com.br/assets/docs/Cabedelo.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brasil
Suape Port - Wikipedia
- 1
- 1
- 1
You could consider the suitability of Olinda's harbour since both cities share the same location in-game (not to mention they're the same conurbation nowadays), besides the fact they were our major harbour in the Northeast, excluding Salvador, for the timespan of the game.
- 3
- 1
- 1
Speaking of Recife/Olinda, I've overlaid the map with google maps, and they look to be on a very odd location, sitting right between Caxangá and Yapuata, not being propely the center of any of them. Quite the oversight.
TL: Recife Port: Recife's port is managed by the government of the Pernambuco State. It is located in the city of Recife, on the margins of the Capibaribe and Beberibe rivers, which flows into the Atlantic ocean. The first slave port in the Americas, the then-called "Port of Pernambuco" was the main outlet for sugar and brazilwood for the Captaincy of Pernambuco, the richest captaincy in Colonial Brazil. Used since 1535, it was also the birthplace of the town of Recife.
Adding to that, from the EN article:
I'll be posting this on the feedback thread as well.
No need for concern (link)
TL: Recife Port: Recife's port is managed by the government of the Pernambuco State. It is located in the city of Recife, on the margins of the Capibaribe and Beberibe rivers, which flows into the Atlantic ocean. The first slave port in the Americas, the then-called "Port of Pernambuco" was the main outlet for sugar and brazilwood for the Captaincy of Pernambuco, the richest captaincy in Colonial Brazil. Used since 1535, it was also the birthplace of the town of Recife.
Adding to that, from the EN article:
I'll be posting this on the feedback thread as well.
- 3
Also, the mouth of the Capibaribe isn't shallow, we constantly have cruiser and cargo ships docked there nowadays.
The main trade port today is in Suape, which supports a modern volume of cargo, but for the time period of EU5, it was in Recife indeed.
- 2
Some data about list:
You can leave out apostrophes and dashes, they only separate the particles that form words, although accents are relevant. Itá = stone/mountain - Pará/Y/Iy = water/river Kûara = burrow - Mboîa = snake - Tyba = grouping - more here.
- 1
- 1
RIO DE JANEIRO
ESPÍRITO SANTO
| Name Nowdays | Old Name | Other Old Name | Tupi Name | Tupi Name note | Other note |
| Paraty | Nossa Senhora dos Remédios de Paratiy | - | Parati'y | - | - |
| Itagauí | São Francisco Xavier de Itaguaí | - | Itá-kûa'y | - | - |
| Rio de Janeiro | São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro | - | Gwa-nã-ba'ra | One of possible name's interpretation to Guanabara the bay that was called in portuguese "Rio de Janeiro" | - |
| Belford Roxo | Santo Antônio de Jacutinga | Ipueras | 'Y-puér-a | It's named 'Y-ûasu at the map, that is the neigborhood city names (Nova Iguaçú) but I've find a name to the proper location. | - |
| Magé | - | - | Magêpe-mirím | This name was give by portugueses and don't mean a geographic fact, but "little chief". By corruption of the word becames Magé. | - |
| Baependi | Santa Maria de Baependi | - | Mba'epina'y | One of possible etimologies. | - |
| Itajubá | Boa Vista de Itajubá | - | Itá-îybá | One of possible etymologu | - |
| Camanducaia | - | - | Komandá-kaî-a | - | - |
| Pouso Alegre | Bom Jesus de Matozinhos do Mandu | - | Mandi-yu | - | - |
| Jacuí | São Carlos do Jacuí | - | Îaku'y | - | - |
| Muriaé | São Paulo do Muriaé | - | Meruim-hu | It's a Puri (also caled Coroado) word. One of possible etimology. Not Tupi. | Note: Puri place names are very rare. |
| Bonfim | Bonfim do Paraopeba | - | Pará-popeba | - | - |
| Itapecerica | São Bento do Tamanduá | - | Itá-pewá-siríka | - | - |
| Piumhi | Nossa Senhora do Livramento do Piui | - | Piawa'y | Piuí like to be a corruption of Piauí, following historical maps. | - |
| Macaé | São João de Macaé | - | Mokaîe | - | - |
ESPÍRITO SANTO
| Name Nowdays | Old Name | Other Old Name | Tupi Name | Tupi name note | Other note |
| Guarapiri | Santa Maria de Guaraparim | Aldeia dos Índios | Guará-parim | - | - |
| Afonso Cláudio | São Sebastião do (Alto) Guandu | - | Nandú | It is most likely that the name Guandu (in the case of Espírito Santo) comes from the rhea bird, nandú in Tupi. | - |
| Conceição da Barra | Barra de São Mateus | Barra do Cricaré | Kiri-kerê | I can't confirm the name. | - |
| Manhuaçu | São Lourenço do Manhuaçu | - | Aman'y-ûasu | - | - |
| Caratinga | São João do Caratinga | - | Aka'ratin'ga | - | - |
| Itanhomi | - | - | Itá-nhomima | - | - |
| Itaobim | - | - | Itá-oby | - | - |
| Itabira (Wrongly called Itatira at map) | Itabira de Mato Dentro | - | Itá-byra | - | - |
| Pitangui | Vila Nova do Infante das Minas de Pitangui | - | Pitanga'y | - | - |
| Ipatinga | - | - | Upaba-tinga | uncertain toponym in fact | - |
| Matipó | São João do Matipó | - | Abati-poó | The truth is that we have lost the etymology of the name. The official and traditional version says that it would mean powdered corn (Match-poo), which makes no sense grammatically or historically. Corn in Tupi corresponds to Abati, which phonetically could easily be corrupted as "mati", however, "pó" means hand or vine which would not make sense, however "poó" in Tupi corresponds to a verb that indicates harvest. This way we can construct, without damaging tradition or etymology, the possible original word without damaging grammar. | - |
| Mutum | São Manuel de Mutum | - | Mutũ | Means a bird. | - |
| Piranga | Guarapiranga | - | Gûará-pirang-a | The original native name was the most long one. | - |
| Caeté | Vila Nova da Rainha | - | Ka'a-eté | - | - |
| Anchieta | Reritiba | - | Reri-tyba | - | - |
Last edited:
- 3
As you can see, it's an improvised map. Having locations of similar sizes and navigable rivers in addition to the locations within the borders of the map drawn. The extension of locationd by the rives would happen if there are others locations at neigborhoods areas. As well it has the arqueological sities at locations (less one or two to inner at florest)
- 3
Well its the preview to Leste do (Grão) Pará feedback. It don't inclued around 5 arqueological areas because it would conect Pará to Mato Grosso, ignoring the non-navigability of the rivers. Maybe some crossings like Saara?
- 3
The map, where the light blue locations are corridors to the navegable Araguaia and Juruá rivers, as well the north of Roraima, that isn't florested and could have locations. Considerate that Rorainópolis location on the old map is bad named.
- 2
So, I got some doubts/need of validation about the Madrid and San Ildefonso treaty lines. Don't know which thread is the best one, this, FleetingRain's one or the tinto maps, but I chose this one. I made proposed lines for the treaties and I wanted to share to validate my choices.
I tried to read the treaties, but it was hard to understand, so I took the description of Braziler as a base.
The treaties worked with the river and watersheds, so as a base I took this map from the Compania de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais dated of 2005. I then separated the basis I consider important. Ibicui, Jacuí, Negro, Camaquã, Piratini and Jaguarão rivers.
The situation. Watersheds in black, today Piratini and Ibicuí rivers in orange. Ibicuí-mirim and the Santa Maria rivers in pink.
1) Let's start with the treaty of Madrid. It follows the watershed up to the Ibicuí source. The watershed in question is Black and Ibicuí river to the west and Jaguarão, Camaquã and Jacuí rivers to the east of the line. The problem: today the Ibicui is consider the junction of the Ibicuí-mirim and the Santa Maria rivers (point A) and it does not have a proper source. There are many possible sources to follows.
If we follow the Ibicuí-mirim or one of it's tributaries, the source is northeast of point A. Point B is the source of the Ibicuí-mirim, for exemple. This is actually somewhat similar to the drawing of the Mapa Das Cortes that was the official map of the treatyof Madrid(red line in the map). I must mention that this map is awful in this region, so although official, it's not a good geographical source.
If we follow the Santa Maria river, or it's main tributary, the Ibicuí da Armada river, we end up with the river source way to the south. The Santa Maria river source is point C. Ibicuí da Armada river has many tributaries and it's sources are to the west of point C. This is more similar with the map present in the Wikipedia page.
The difference is rather big, so which one to consider? My initial guess was using the Santa Maria river source (C).
2) Now, the San Ildefonso treaty, which was even more confusingly written, but is in accordance to the interpretation of Braziler it is easier to draw. It follows the Mirin lake, then the São Gonzalo channel and up the Piratini river to it's source. Question: which source? It has numerous tributaries. Point D is in the source in the map I took as a base. Other possible sources, arroio basílio and it's tributaries, are a little to the west of point D.
3) Also in the San Ildefonso treaty, after the source of the Piratini river, it follows the watershed between the Jacuí and Uruguay basins up to the source of Garita river. However, the Piratini basin does not touch neither the Jacuí or Uruguay basins, as it is comprised between the Camaquã and Jaguarão(Camaquã goes to the Patos lagoon and Jaguarão to the Mirim lake). To solve this, I just followed the watershed of this basis up until I reached the Uruguay basin.
Proposed lines. Madrid in yellow, San Ildefonso in green.
So, does it seems ok to represent the treaties? Any feedback or ideas?
I tried to read the treaties, but it was hard to understand, so I took the description of Braziler as a base.
I refer here to the souther end of the frontier, today in the territory of Rio Grande do Sul.
The treaties worked with the river and watersheds, so as a base I took this map from the Compania de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais dated of 2005. I then separated the basis I consider important. Ibicui, Jacuí, Negro, Camaquã, Piratini and Jaguarão rivers.
The situation. Watersheds in black, today Piratini and Ibicuí rivers in orange. Ibicuí-mirim and the Santa Maria rivers in pink.
1) Let's start with the treaty of Madrid. It follows the watershed up to the Ibicuí source. The watershed in question is Black and Ibicuí river to the west and Jaguarão, Camaquã and Jacuí rivers to the east of the line. The problem: today the Ibicui is consider the junction of the Ibicuí-mirim and the Santa Maria rivers (point A) and it does not have a proper source. There are many possible sources to follows.
If we follow the Ibicuí-mirim or one of it's tributaries, the source is northeast of point A. Point B is the source of the Ibicuí-mirim, for exemple. This is actually somewhat similar to the drawing of the Mapa Das Cortes that was the official map of the treatyof Madrid(red line in the map). I must mention that this map is awful in this region, so although official, it's not a good geographical source.
If we follow the Santa Maria river, or it's main tributary, the Ibicuí da Armada river, we end up with the river source way to the south. The Santa Maria river source is point C. Ibicuí da Armada river has many tributaries and it's sources are to the west of point C. This is more similar with the map present in the Wikipedia page.
The difference is rather big, so which one to consider? My initial guess was using the Santa Maria river source (C).
2) Now, the San Ildefonso treaty, which was even more confusingly written, but is in accordance to the interpretation of Braziler it is easier to draw. It follows the Mirin lake, then the São Gonzalo channel and up the Piratini river to it's source. Question: which source? It has numerous tributaries. Point D is in the source in the map I took as a base. Other possible sources, arroio basílio and it's tributaries, are a little to the west of point D.
3) Also in the San Ildefonso treaty, after the source of the Piratini river, it follows the watershed between the Jacuí and Uruguay basins up to the source of Garita river. However, the Piratini basin does not touch neither the Jacuí or Uruguay basins, as it is comprised between the Camaquã and Jaguarão(Camaquã goes to the Patos lagoon and Jaguarão to the Mirim lake). To solve this, I just followed the watershed of this basis up until I reached the Uruguay basin.
Proposed lines. Madrid in yellow, San Ildefonso in green.
So, does it seems ok to represent the treaties? Any feedback or ideas?