FANDOM


Archives: 12

Attention Admins: Possible Timeline Reboot

It's been quite a while since I've been on the timeline... like two years.

This is a message to the admins, as well as to any and all timeline contributes who may still be on this site (or who continues to read this talk page). I've been considering doing a "timeline reboot" for quite some time now. By which I mean completely cleanup and alter many aspects to the timeline. This may include the de-canonization of several Antarctic nations and their respective articles, as well as the complete alteration of the continent as a whole. I was considering doing this as a kind of spinoff timeline, but seeing as the most active participants have gone AWOL, I might just consider doing it to the main timeline.

This message is primarily to see how many users are still active on this site, so I can make my final decision on whether to move forward or work around this. I will likely give this a few weeks to settle in, at which time I will give more details as to what I'm talking about. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 01:54, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested. This is one of my favorite TLs of all time, and I would be honored to work on it. Bfoxius (talk)

Forgive me, but this message was more intended for the admins to the timeline (wasn't an invitation). As for future contributions, this timeline is partially closed for the time being. But once things have been cleaned up enough I would be honored for any help. You are also more than welcome to comment on the subjects I will be writing within the next few weeks. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 02:38, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

If you ever need help writing and organizing new articles, my offer still stands. I still have the articles you deleted saved if you ever want them, and I'd be happy to help.If you only want the help of certain people that's fine too, but know that I will be waiting if you ever call upon me. Mscoree (talk) 02:55, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Curious to see what you have in mind, Nuke. Lordganon (talk) 08:20, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

I'm still here (Sort of), much like Lordganon i'd be curious as to what you had in mind. I don't personally feel any huge attachment to my work on GWS although I certainly enjoyed writing it and i had considered re-doing and re-writing/expanding some of the articles i wrote and had gotten as far as writing in draft form a more detailed history of Maudland, in particular to explain why it had joined Norway in the first place and as to why there had been a desire for independence as well as planning when my Exam's were over this year to bring up the standard of my older work in general to that of the articles i'v more recently written. That said, this was always your ball-park but i was very grateful for the opportunity to work in it and i look forward to seeing what you have planned. Vegas adict (talk)

I'm going to be giving an update to this reboot idea and trying to give basic understanding to what I have in mind. I originally wanted to keep the big idea secret (and even considered making a spinoff timeline around this). But seeing as Mister Sheen (whose contributions make up the majority of the timeline) has been absent for two years now, I may just go ahead and alter the timeline as a whole.

To simplify, this idea will focus on altering the climate of Antarctica, based on my current understanding of the continent and climate in general. The main change will be that Antarctica would now have an ice cap, though it would not be continent-wide (as OTL). So pretty much the coastline and well inland would remain habitable, while the area south of the 80th parallel (roughly the size of Greenland) would become this ice cap.

Because of which, the number of nations would be subtracted on the continent. Primarily, I'm thinking about de-canonizing the nations of the nations of Byrdia, Maudland, New Vestfold, and Santiago. However I've also been considering the de-canonization of these nations for many years now. Maudland and Santiago seem to be too optimistic given the more powerful forces on the continent, while Byrida and New Vestfold completely puzzle me as to their longevity. It's primarily due to my thoughts on these four which lead me to keep quiet about the reboot details initially, but in order to move on this will have to be brought up for discussion. But at the very least, I would have no intention of outright abandoning these four in full, rather reorganize them into the timeline. But more on those later.

That being said, the remaining Antarctic nations (to me) appear historically and climatically stable enough to remain, tough with some border and historic differences. I may also expand the South Pole Neutral Territory since the region would be as habitable as Greenland. The only remaining timeline alterations I currently have in mind include the de-canonization of the "Imperial Confederation" as I don't think it would be as viable here as OTL, as well as looking into some of the biographies listed across the timeline.

Though it should be noted that I have no intention of making any changes over night. I will give more details before doing anything major, but I would feel happier to start a discussion on this to work out any bugs and work around what needs to be done. I do hope this explanation will not be a major shock or episode to those who have either enjoyed or worked on this timeline, and I have no intention of ending this community. Sorry if I sounded a little corny at the end, but I felt it had to be said. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 04:42, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Expanding the ice cap, not a bad idea. Though I doubt that the South Pole zone would be expanded - the nations surrounding the area would still want to control areas near their settled territory. Just because it is solid ice doesn't mean it would not be wanted - you need only look at the actions of India and Pakistan in the Himalayas for proof of that. Don't make it exactly the 80th parallel all over, mind. For example, the islands are probably safe from it, and it likely wouldn't get all the way up that peninsula on the one side, while it would likely go over the parallel in the northeast and east.

Byrdia, agreed. Can't see a basis for it. Give whatever is left of it after the ice to Ognia.

New Vestfold, can understand some shrinkage, but... it does make sense for the Aussies to hold some territory. Think of it, in the end, as the Brits giving an area to them, much like Papua otl. Easier to stomach.

Maudland, more plausible than you think. Norwegian whalers have been coming to that area of the world, even otl, for a long time. There's a reason why the region has several Norwegian islands otl, after all. Whalers establish the claims, and eventually establish outposts to base themselves out of, etc. With time, these turn into settlements, with government backing. Long-term, Maudland.

Santiago, somewhat debatable. You're right that it is a bit optimistic, but at the same time, it is a logical extension of SA territories in several ways. Maybe just move it to the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula? That would be logical. Give the areas of the map it currently occupies to a combination of Ognia and Maudland. Have to do something else with the otl British islands north of there, however.

Something you miss, though, is the United Republic. Expanding the ice there takes up most of the Russian part - basically defeating the purpose of it being a United Republic. Take the leftover Russian bits, add them to Bellinsgauzenia. Probably just add the rest of it, the English and Kilaiye parts, to Eduarda.

Going to basically wipe out the NZ mainland areas, too, though that's more or less inconsequential.

The inland bits, given an expanded ice cap, would need adjustment. Borders there would likely just end up being straight lines. Other spots, reductions. Would basically wipe out the inland areas of Maudland, for example, with some coastal compensation.

Could do a map to more or less show what I mean, overall.

Imperial Confederation, probably a good idea.

Lordganon (talk) 07:19, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Certainly something growing out of Norwegian/Swedish whalers into some form of permanent settlement seems likely. That said however with a reduction in the amount of land available on the continent the ability of Norway/Sweden to establish a large settlement seems significantly less likely. That said to me, depending on when Antartica is discovered the same is also true for colonization by the Germans and other states that were either newly emerging as great powers or were not great powers at all. Some form of settlement by the Spanish or the South American states seems almost inevitable to me although perhaps not in the form that Santiago took, particularly given that it is not all that far a distance between the outlying South American islands and Antarctica. Vegas adict (talk) 14:14, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated before, I wanted to keep the overall details hush for another discussion. But since I let the genie out of the bottle, guess there's no point. I would also like to reiterate that when these changes become canon than the timeline as a whole will have to be looked into. While not all areas I have considered, I will assure you all that I do have ideas for virtually all aspects of the timeline (even if I didn't mention them).

To give more details, the icecap idea would be roughly the size of Greenland and would effect (what is already canon) the "Ross Dependency Panhandle" of Bellinsgauzenia, the inland New Devon, inland Maudland, about 80-90% of Santiago, and virtually all of Byrdia. The South Pole Neutral Territory would be expanded to include the majority (but not all) of this ice cap. I see somewhere around the 85th parallel, but a little more north.

As for Maudland and Santiago, while I see those nations not existing I have been thinking (and will make happen) that SA and Scandinavians would still establish settlements in the area. The main difference is that once Germany gets involved, these settlements are absorbed into New Swabia. This would definitely make NS more active in its 20th century history (could see its civil war getting... active).

I still see doubts about Australia getting any territory in mainland Antarctica. The main reason I say this is because the British already have territory there. Papua I can understand because Australia was the main British power in the area, but on Antarctica they'd have Eduarda and New Devon. At the most, I could say the British give some territory to Australia, but it would be merged into New Devon upon it becoming a dominion (the people living there would likely support that).

Onto New Devon (which I intend to give the old name back), I do have contingency plans for it. With the ice cap now covering all of "New Ingria," I intend to see the Russians settling the area covering east ND and New Vestfold (which may or may not have been its own colonial territory under the Russian Empire). Like what is canon, the British conquer the area following WWI. The rest of the history would follow approximately what is already canon, with an equal Anglo-Russian government existing today. I also have New Devon taking the Heard and MacDonald Islands, though these could be given to Australia if they want them.

Ognia already needs to be cleaned up (regardless of whether these changes would've happened), but here are the main ideas. Starting from the beginning, the "main island" would've been divided into several independent nations following WWI (due to tribal tensions). They would eventually unite as a loose confederation akin to the EU by the 1960s (forming the basis of Ognia). The majority of "Alexandria" would've been in limbo following WWI, but would eventually establish a pro-Soviet communist government during the 1940s. This government would last until the 1970s, at which time it collapses and civil war breaks out. The population would be divided, with the "pure Russians" supporting a Bellinsgauzenian-backed government, while the "creoles" and "natives" would favor an independent (and pro-Ognian) government (with the later winning). The main island and Alexandria unite to form Ognia by the mid to late 1970s. The British dominion of Graham Land eventually votes to join Ognia. The Falklands War still happens, just now involving Argentina going after more islands in Antarctica itself. The Anglo-Ognian forces win, with the Falklands, SGSSI, and the islands off the Antarctic Peninsula joining Ognia by the mid to late 1980s. There is to be more details, but this is just basic understanding.

What I see for New Swabia would roughly follow what is canon. During WWI, the German and SA side with Germany, potentially with the Scandinavians favoring the allies. NS eventually becomes a trust territory of Eduarda, but a coup/revolution establishes NS as a German-backed fascist nation during the 1930s. They side with Germany during WWII, but no major fighting make them akin to Spain and the fascist government continues to exist. The government collapses and civil war breaks out by the 1970s, ending in the current democratic government taking hold. I don't think I'm forgetting anything in regards to NS.

I still intend to de-canonize the "Imperial Confederation," and instead focus on the Commonwealth of Nations. Overall, this wouldn't change Eduarda's pro-British feeling.

The only variables I have include Kerguelen and New Zealand's island claims. I would much rather Kerguelen gain independence as opposed to remaining part of France, but this is not a major issue IMO, and I will leave this one open. The Ross Sea islands (Balleny, Scott, and Ross) may have originally been under Russian control, but came under British control following WWI, and it remained to this day. New Zealand would've gained them at some point, and this may have caused some tensions between them and Bellinsgauzenia. NZ may have also included some mainland territory which later became part of Bellinsgauzenia, but I may de-canonize this as well. In the long run, Bellinsgauzenia needs some work but its too complicated to write out right now.

Here is the map I have been playing around with. The blue shows the outline of the new ice cap. The purple lines show the national outlines and they now become. The green line (if you can see it) shows the potential divide which may have once divided Russian Antarctica and British Antarctica prior to WWI. NS's eastern border is shifted more west, but they gain more territory in the long run. There are more straight lines being used for borders. I gave Eduarda a panhandle for now, but I may change it in the future (will see what you guys think). I'm also considering that the "Ross Dependency" (in name) would be reintroduced to describe a united government for New Zealand's claims. Other than that, please note that this map is a WIP, and the lines may be slightly altered when I make a finalized version. If I've forgotten anything, please let me know so I can fill it in. Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 18:00, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

While I'm disappointed to see Byrdia gone, I have an idea for the fall of the New Swabian government. There's no reason to bring it down with a coup/revolution when you can simply have them go the same way that Francoist Spain went. Charismatic strongman dies and the government falls soon afterwards. Also is it possible for the Japanese to have seized part of Russian territory in the area in the Russo-Japanese War or is that out of their reach? I'd also think that as many Koreans would be in the population as Japanese settlers. --Yank 18:26, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
Well given what is already canon, not too sure what will happen in NS. It could go similar to Spain/South Africa, but will work on that later.
I believe this was already talked about and I turned it down then and now. There is no way Japan will get any territory in Antarctica (let alone getting it in the Russo-Japanese War). At the most (which I'm considering) is that many Japanese settlers will settle Antarctica during the 20th century, but would be no different from other settlers in these nations. Pretty much Antarctica will be treated as part of the New World and would automatically become a melting pot continent. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 19:28, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

BTW, looking at this map, I guess I will give a hint of how the accents of the Anglophone states would look like.

Eduarda's English accent would be based on the dialect of St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha, as well as borrowings from South African English as spoken by Anglo-South Africans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha

New Devonian might be influenced by Australian and Eduardan as well.

Falklandic English would be the default Ognian English dialect, albeit with more Spanish influence.

Ross Dependency English is an outgrowth of NZ English.

South Pole of course, uses a very neutral English in official gatherings.

About other languages:

New Swabian German is influenced by Norwegian as well as possibly Namibian German dialect.

Bellinsgauzenian Russian is basically a Northern Russian dialect turned upside down.

Any more suggestions?

--General tiu (talk) 01:07, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Don't like my posts being indented. Clutters the page and makes it harder for me to reference it.

Thing you miss with the icecap, Nuke, is that inland areas are colder, on average, than coastal areas. It's why in otl Antarctica, the coastal areas are mostly free of the icecap, even near the South Pole, and the thickest parts of the icecap are at a higher latitude than the Pole, being some 750 miles from the South Pole east/north, and about the same distance inland. The absolute thickest part, the Argus Dome, is only just north of where you have the word "Republic" in "United Republic," after all. As you well know, it and the latitude also explain the peninsula being rather ice-free. Same effects can be observed in Greenland to some degree.

Basically guarantees that the Byrdia peninsula and that one island of Santiago you have covered are going to be ice-free, or nearly so.

You should pull back the ice from those two areas, and further from the coast - somewhere in the area of the Santiago and Bell~ borders you have it covering from the other map. Expand it more in the other direction. Past New Kristiansand, most of the way to Vostok, and halfway to Amery. Lake Vostok would become a glacial lake. Same size, just more geographic sense.

The latitude matters far less than the location, overall, does.

Not what I meant about the straight lines. Aside, maybe - and not likely - one between the Russians and Brits, they would not start until the icecap. Geography matters more for borders than that, except for uninhabitable areas, or lines drawn far in advance of claims or settlements already existing.

The international wouldn't expand that much. At the very least, it would not include habitable areas. Really, it's not going to be much larger, if at bigger at all, than the old one.

The problem with New Swabia is that your argument for Maudland and Santiago actually applies even better to it than to those two "states." At least Norway and South America had a history of colonization prior to the 1870s. You won't see any German colonization until at least then. The only reasons they'd get any territory at all is because Norway would not be expanding their area very fast.

Was never all that thrilled with SA settling that far away from SA anyway. Further north is more likely. Really, getting a state at all was a bit much, considering that Patagonia was really not settled until the early 1900s and is even today still underpopulated. A Latin part of Ognia is much more logical. In a lot of ways, imo.

You're going to see officials from Scandinavia - Swedish at first, and later Norwegian - governing semi-permanent, and later permanent, settlements, in Antarctica from at least 1850 onward. Sort of like the first settlements in Newfoundland. If the Russians can do it that early, then the Swedes/Norwegians can too - heck, they are in most ways in a better position to do it.

Soon as there is officials, there is a colony. And after that, Germans can't do a thing to get rid of it.

Nor are the Germans going to be around earlier - too much going on in Europe. Wasn't until Bismarck got booted from office that they even started colonizing, remember. Can't change that one.

New Swabia absorbing them makes no sense, realistically.

Something that I could see is New Devon actually starting out under Australian control, ala~ New Zealand, but eventually going a different way, again like New Zealand. To some degree, however, you're wrong about Australia not being a power - it's just that the area it would, in theory, be best able to influence is Russian territory. Now that I really think about it, New Devon starting out that way is just about the most logical thing for that area - near enough to Australia for that to make sense as a base, but far enough to stay out of joining it. Would also help explain why it is not part of Eduarda - always been a minor point to me.

Still don't see why the Brits would actually annex what would, in theory, be allied territory. Occupy, sure - they did that enough otl. But outright annexation is a bit much, in my opinion.

Heard and MacDonald islands are far enough away that it would make more sense for them to Australian.

Don't know what on earth you're referring to as "Alexandria," but the rest of that makes sense. Bet on the confederation being established by the 1930s, however. Can even have concerns about New Swabia be the reason for it being earlier than you thought. Falklands War atl should still just be mostly over those islands. Argentina would not have the power to even try going after the mainland.

New Swabia as written works. Expanding it, no. Enough of a stretch for it as it is.

Fairly sure Kerguelen would not be able to be independent.

For the NZ islands, Scott probably would not have started out as theirs. But the others, probably would have - no Russian control. As for a united government for them, they are geographically distant enough - Ross and the others, I mean, since the other two are close enough to work - that that is probably too much to ask for.

Remember you having turned down something about Japan before too. Doesn't really work, overall, to have them here. Would be well beyond their ability to attack, let alone take over, parts of Antarctica. Brits would be alarmed if they tried, as well.

GT, probably mostly right on the English accents and the Russian one. German, however, would be more influenced by northern German dialect.

Lordganon (talk) 13:23, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Reboot 2.0

Let's try this again. After a week of playing around I think I have a working model for a new Antarctica.

Firstly, the ice cap (blue on the map) is centered mostly in Eastern Antarctica, as opposed to following the lines of latitude. The outline is based on the mountain ranges found on this map. I left the northernmost mountains (at least) not connected to this ice cap (though may gain separate ones) and gave the coastline more room (similar to Greenland).

As for the nations, I'm still leaving out Byrdia, New Vestfold, and Santiago; but will re-include Maudland (which will gain the majority of Santiago's old territory). The South Pole is shrunk down from my original idea, but still larger than canon.

Since the ice cap is larger, most of the boundaries use rivers along the coast, while going to straight lines the farther inland. The boundary between Maudland and New Swabia is completely straight, which (based on what is canon) was standardized following World War II.

I still prefer the boundary between Bellinsgauzenia and New Devon to be a straight line (looks much better to me as of now). My head canon for this would be that Russia originally claimed and colonized more territory (up to the "Gulf of Amery"). The watersheds were used to define the boundaries (rivers going to the "Gulf of Amery" go to ND, while those going to the ocean go to Russia). Following World War I and the civil war going on across Russian Antarctica, the British occupy several regions (maybe to assure their interests and to prevent violence crossing the border). Around the time Bellinsgauzenia is about to be formed (and possibly to prevent war between the Brits and Bell.), a border redrawing takes place. The 90th meridian east would act as the boundary. That circular line (as my head canon says) would be used to assure Mirny (a major city) would have a buffer area between them and the new border.

Also a note to LG, it is already canon that the Brits annex Russian territory (hence why New Devon exist). Why would you say that's wouldn't be the case now?

The straight line boundary between Eduarda and ND can be regarded as temporary, but I'd prefer ND's boundaries to look as they are here. Maybe Eduarda wishes to assure a claim to the South Pole when ND is formed?

Next I will share the head canon for "Graham Land." Like what is canon, the British claim it and colonize the area (along with the Falklands and the area). Instead of Santiago, the Argentinians and Chileans begin to settle in the area as well. While not large enough to establish their own nation, the Hispanic settlers do influence the development of the region. They all join Ognia by the late 1980s, and may have played a role in the Falkland War.

I believe that's it. The only things I think I will add is that New Devon (more or less) was given to Australia for colonization, but would later follow New Zealand and separate. I'd also still prefer New Zealand's claims in the Ross Sea to be some kind of united entity. Possibly the northernmost islands (Balleny and Scott) were claimed by the British, later to be given to the Realm of New Zealand. Ross Island (closer to Bellinsgauzenia) was initially claimed by Russia, but would come under Anglo-Kiwi administration sometime after WWII (and is incorporated into the government of the other islands). Aside from potentially having oil-based economies, I doubt these islands (or at least Ross Island) would have major populations, and would likely be connected by larger native (non-European) populations.

The final thing is the "British Imperial Confederation." I still think this shouldn't happen (as is) ATL. As what is already canon, this imperial federation only includes Eduarda, Newfoundland (which doesn't join Canada), and the UK itself. Ignoring the potential that ND and Graham Land were once members (before changing governments), I don't think these three would be any better off in such an organization (as it stands). The way I see it (and from what I've read), such a union wouldn't really be that functional (let alone desired) without major players such as Australia and Canada. Even if the original creator intended to include more regions (such as the Caribbean and the Pacific), I doubt an imperial federation of three/four dominions would solve anything other than pride (especially since decolonization was in full swing at the time). What I think should be the case follows OTL more. In which Newfoundland joins Canada, and Eduarda is a dominion with similar structures to that of the others. As a compromise, if Eduarda is to have a stronger pro-British feel to it, than replace the imperial confederation with a [somewhat] stronger Commonwealth of Nations. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 19:20, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

As an added bonus, I'm also in the process of designing new flags for Kerguelen and Maudland. Just getting it out there for discussion. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 23:34, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Quite surprised nobody has commented (compared to my first post). Regardless, consider this an update with more directions I'm considering for the timeline.

Flag of Maudland (Great White South)

New flag for Maudland.

The first thing is that I've uploaded a new flag for Maudland. It is based more on a (potentially) proposed flag for Queen Maud Land from OTL. I've decided to use this color scheme after re-thinking what the nation would be. Since the population would be dominated by Norwegians and Swedes, and the nation was caught in between the dissolution of Norway-Sweden in 1905; I could see these colors being a compromise. The light-blue could be in reference to Sweden, while the dark-blue cross would reference Norway. Just a thought, though if this flag is really disdained then I'll revert it (though I'd prefer to eliminate the black background flag in the future).

Also as a message to Vegas (since Maudland is your department), I would love to get an explanation as to why they choose Norway over Sweden, and how the dissolution would effect the two populations within the nation. From what I've quickly read I think I can make some assumptions as to why they choose Norway, but I would love to get a more detailed history.

Antarctic Migration Map (Great White South)

AIP migration map.

The next bit of information will effect the native makeup of Antarctica. As what is canon, Antarctica is dominated by two native groups: those coming from South America (Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego) and populate much of Western Antarctica (i.e., the Ognic peoples) and the Polynesians (probably the Maori) coming from New Zealand and settling much of Eastern Antarctica. In the map provided, here is how I now see the migration and how this will effect the AIPs and the contemporary nations as a whole. The Fuegians populate the "Western Antarctic Archipelago" parts of the mainland. The Maori/Polynesians first populate the Ross Sea islands and coast, expanding inland and westward (mostly along the coast). This makes Bellinsgauzenia have a Maori native population and culture (which gets me excited), though I'm not sure how far they would trek before European contact (since the Polynesians are an early bunch of colonizers). I guessed no farther than the "Gulf of Amery" (the border between Eduarda and New Devon), but maybe farther west. Though I'd predict that New Swabia, Maudland, and much of Santiago (based on what is canon, not what's being proposed) would be "Virgin Land" (unpopulated before European contact).

The only other thing I will add is that I may be expanding what the Ognian language is. Rather than simply being Yaghan, Ognian may also include elements of Chonan languages (which some have suggestion Yaghan may be a part of, but won't get into that here). I've found an amazing dictionary which shows basic words of the Yaghan and Chonan languages, which I will be using to make up an Ognian dictionary. I'm also reconsidering the demographic makeup of Ognia, in which only the core areas (i.e., former Byrdia and "westernmost island"), while the rest is split between Europeans and creoles (mixed Euro-Native).

http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/ids/

The last thing for today will be a recent concept in regards to "Grahamland" (which I really hate that name now that I look at it). I feel confident that the area becomes a British colony (as opposed to a Russian one), but I'm now thinking (if it isn't already canon) that the Brits would likely combine all their claims in the Scotia Sea together (including the Falklands and such). I've already began an article for it, but I'm thinking about naming this new entity "New South Greenland." I know it may sound like an odd name, but it's based on a historical name.

Naming aside, the main reason I bring this up is that it might make sense to turn this entity into a Santiago-like nation. What do I mean, well it depends on how the region develops. But if my understanding of Antarctica is half as good as I thought it was, I'd suspect that this part of the continent (being the farthest north) could become one of the more popular destinations for settlers (if not being more densely populated, or you know what I mean [not sure if I got the words out right]).

That said, I'd also predict that many Argentine and Chilean settlers would come to the area. Both because its close and due to (if this map says anything) mineral rushes in the area.

From that, let's assume that the SA population becomes large enough (not necessarily the majority or plurality) to put pressure on the British. Following Santiago's history a little, this colony could peacefully gain independence as opposed to being absorbed into SA or trigger a war. English and Spanish would be official languages, but that's about it (only a recent idea).

At the moment, I can go either way with this. Either this region follows a similar path and joins Ognia later on (as what is canon), but I though this might be an interesting divergence and homage/resurrection for Santiago. I will leave this one open for discussion and see what you all think. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 01:28, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

That new map fixes one of the problems I personally had with Maudland in the existing TL which is, why did a nation that had probably emerged from coastal villages and settlements consisting of whalers and perhaps later there families as well as refueling posts, have such a large interior. In the current article I described Norwegian explorers being the first the land on the area, more realistically in a rewritten Maudland those would be Whalers and Fishermen who were in the Antarctic waters hunting and eventually took the step of setting up a base on the land. As to why they chose Norway over Sweden it comes down to a number of factors. Firstly Norway, given its longer coastline and history has a much greater affinity with the sea and as such had/has a larger fishing fleet than Sweden, furthermore unlike Sweden the majority of Norway's coast faces out towards the North Sea rather than into towards the Baltic. Given that the majority of those whalers who initially landed on what would become Maudland were Norwegian they would naturally have an affinity with that country over Sweden. The Swedish population would probably be smaller, but not so much so as to make them second class citizens, given that those officials sent to look after the new colony would probably be Swedish. I doubt that all of these officials and fishermen as well as official colonists all up and leave after the countries split, especially given that they would still share a common culture and language base.

I have two other things about Maudland that I'v been thinking about. Firstly, given that the early settlement would be by fisherman and whalers (For the most part lonely men) I would envision that there was, in the beginning at least a large Norwegian-Ognian population. Furthermore to explain Maudland's latent militancy in Canon and its ability to beat the New Swabians and install democracy I view Maudland, at least up until the fall of the Facist regime as being a very militant society, permanently afraid of there neighbors. Given that the New Swabians occupied the country in WW2 and presumably committed at least some atrocity they would have a similar level of hatred for them as say the french or Norwegians did of the Nazi's in OTL. However unlike France and Norway in OTL Maudland is situated right next door to the same regime that occupied and that regime hasn't changed. As Such I imagine that militarism and defense of "Scandinavian Values" like liberty and freedom et all would occupy a large place in Maudlandic political debate. --Vegas adict (talk) 21:53, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

You can chalk Maudland's "odd shape" to it being suggested after Santiago got into play. It also shows why I originally wanted to nix Maudland in the first place, but you can also chalk that up to me knowing very little about Scandinavia (at least its history).
Thank you for the explanation, it really helps out. I would also like to look into how Maudland functions as a state and its relations with Norway.
In regards to New Swabia, I should add that it's "many wars" are on my to-do list of rewriting. While WWII could maybe see New Swabian occupation of Maudland (Quisling may have encouraged it to some degree), but this would end around the middle of the war when New Swabia opts for peace and survival. Though in regards to its civil war later on... not really sure what to make of it (I certainly didn't write it, and it doesn't appear to even be canon as of yet). While Maudland may very well aid for democracy there, I would like to think the war wouldn't spill over the border. But (if I'm reading it correctly) the pro-Democratic forces puts pressure on Maudland to act, then that's a different story. While it's not mentioned, I would suspect that Bellinsgauzenia would/should play a key role in this (not to mention South Africa, which appears to be mentioned).
As for a Norwegian-Ognian population, I don't see this being out of the question. With Byrdia likely to be going soon, I'm going to reorganize the region as an Ognian territory which may have included parts of southern Maudland. I also suspect that the islands in the Weddell Sea (such as Berkner) would've had historic Ognian populations. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 00:56, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

A quickie update, I began redoing the main map file I have. Here is an updated version of the same ideas. However, I added New South Greenland (if not primarily that it was a British colony before becoming part of Ognia [canon]). Hope you guys like it. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 01:06, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

WIP map of Antarctica

Update (6/2/2014).

Here's another update for everybody, and a new idea which came to mind. Firstly, the new map. I tweaked the borders a little and added details for the straight lines (primarily for me to remember, but interesting to know). The only real variable I still can't figure out is the Eduarda-New Devon border. Excluding the river boundary closer to the "Gulf of Amery," I can't decide on how the border will finish. Because of which, I currently have a dotted line showing two likely directions. One would give Eduarda a panhandle to the South Pole, while the other would give that panhandle to New Devon. Regardless of the boundary, the area will be covered in ice and not really worth much aside from research. I personally prefer the Eduardan Panhandle design, primarily because it makes New Devon visually more appealing to me (as well as making Eduarda look like a brain and brain stem). I guess you could chalk this border decision on Eduardans preferring to retain access to the South Pole when New Devon becoming a dominion (this would've been before the Neutral Territory was established, mind). I'm open to any feedback and suggestions.
The second idea (not sure if I already mentioned this) involves the recycling of New Vestfold (which is pretty much being de-canonized as we speak). This area would become the Russian-speaking areas of New Devon (replacing "New Ingria" in location and name). I also have a few ideas I wish to add to New Devon, including how it functions and how it came to be. My current vision includes the Russian populations making up around a third of the total population. During the dominion, they were disenfranchised and treated as second class citizens. It would be more comparable to the situation in the Southern US during Jim Crow, as opposed to Apartheid in South Africa. Democracy was also rather shifty during this period for those who could participate (i.e., the English majority) to the point that most disliked the monarchy for doing little. After decades of Russian terrorism and English protests, a reformer is elected as Prime Minister (Elmo Focker, still love that name XP). He implements well needed reforms begins a referendum that would change the nation. The Russians were allowed to vote on whether to leave the nation (likely to join Bellinsgauzenia at a later date), in which a slim majority (about 55 or so) vote to remain in the nation. Both the English and Russians have a second vote on the future of the nation, in which the majority (Russians more so, but the English are just as supportive) to reform the nation as a republic (eliminating all connections with the British Monarchy). I also have personal interest in structuring the government of New Devon after South Africa. In which the President is both head of state and government, but is appointed by means of a parliamentary system.
The last update involves the Ross Dependency as it has been in previous versions. I've given up on the notion of combining the Balleny Islands with Ross and Scott, and will keep them separate (with the Balleny Islands being more populous by comparison). My idea for Ross and Scott (which I think I'll be renaming the "Ross Dependency") would involve it becoming integrated into Bellinsgauzenia as of recently (comparable to the "canon" dissolution). Firstly a little head canon back story. Given their proximity to Russian Antarctica, I predict that most of these islands (excluding the Balleny Islands and possibly Scott) were initially Russian territory. Following the collapse of the Russian Empire, the British would cease Ross Island (and a few more I'm thinking), giving them to New Zealand later on. Why you may ask. Based on what I've read, the Ross Sea will have large oil reserves. With Russia collapsing and its colonies quickly going into chaos, I think the Brits may cease some of these territories to secure the oil from potentially falling under "enemy" hands. The same could potentially be applied to New Vestfold and why the Brits would annex this Russian-speaking region (though I'll have to do more research as to what's there, or simply make something up).
With the exception of Ross Island, I don't see the Ross Dependency having that large of a population, with most being oil-related workers from New Zealand and possibly Bellinsgauzenia. Under similar circumstances as what was canon, New Zealand agrees to hand over sovereignty to Bellinsgauzenia, which will administer the area as a territory for the time being. But if this idea sounds awful, than pretty much no change, except that Bellinsgauzenia may continue to claim the islands or pressure for their return.
That's it for now. Look forward to responses. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 16:58, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Much better icecap.

Good sizes for the states overall.

Aside from the NS/Maudland border, the rest should probably follow rivers a little more, but it is better.

Like I said before, not too logical for the Brits to actually annex what would at least in theory be allied territory. Change the annexing bit to be ending a border dispute in its favor. Same border, just better explanation.

Yeah, both ND and Eduarda would want a claim to the pole.

That is a much better concept instead of an Imperial Confederation.

Good looking flag.

Would be overdoing it slightly to have the SA group get to South Georgia and other islands out that way. Overall, about right on colonization/exploration by the two groups. Maori - you're right about the likely colonists from Polynesia being from there - would probably only have the coastal areas colonized by the time Europeans get there. Remember, they only got to New Zealand between 1250 and 1300.

Good direction for the one native language. Ethnic makeup sounds right too.

Good name for that British colony.

That northern area... more popular in theory for settlers, but it would still be pretty rocky. Lot of fishing and mining settlements. More south would have more population still, with more agriculture.

As for the concept of Santiago... thinking on it, makes more sense for it to be in Ognia than on its own. Would be more settlers from outside of SA - Patagonia first, more or less, and I'm sure the Brits would rather have people around more loyal to them.

Vegas more or less has it as to why Maudland would go to Norway. Same for the early population.

Don't see NS getting actually officially involved in anything during WWII. Be near-suicidal.

Civil War in NS has sounded good for a while though.

Yeah, Eduarda would definitely want access to the South Pole. That overall border looks good right now - keep it as it is.

Really can't see some sort of discriminatory regime against Russians coming into being in New Devon. It's not like they would have to do such a thing to maintain power like in SA or the American South. Can definitely see their presence leading to it becoming a republic, however. Change the government to be something like SA in the process.

Ross Dependency, good name.

Don't think the Brits would know about oil that early on in these areas.

Find it unlikely that Ross would go to Bell~ at this point.

Insofar as I can guess, that area of Antarctica would be lesser-populated. I could, however, see the island being taken for a base of operations in that light. Being low-population, you'd see the Russians in a minority pretty early on. No way it leaves NZ control, especially after oil is found.

So, stays with NZ, but Bell~ keeps up a claim.

Lordganon (talk) 12:16, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Wrapping up

OMG? I feel so relieved that I'm getting on the right track.

While I could potentially use "that river" along the Bellinsgauzenian-New Devonian border (looks similar to the current circular border I have in mind), I don't think there's any more rivers that could be used. In particular, the border between Eduarda and New Swabia is pretty mountainous (around the 2000 meter mark). I could play around with this area, but not completely sure. As for the Muadland-NS border, I could potentially see both of them (mostly during WWI) fighting for control of Coats Land, with sporadic fighting taking place since then. The straight line boundary would come into play to prevent further fighting, pretty much with no one getting what they want.

I suppose a border dispute could come into play for New Devon (makes some sense).

So a "stronger" Commonwealth of Nations? Not really sure what that would entail, but it can be worked on later.

So my idea of an independent "New South Greenland" is less desirable than unification with Ognia? Pity, but not a big deal. I still have many ideas for the area. Not really sure how this would effect the Falklands War. Either Argentina leave it alone (happy that the Brits [at the least] gave up sovereignty to a regional player) or fight (the theoretically weaker) Ognia.

I can agree that New Swabia wouldn't get "that involved" in WWII. Most of the fighting on their part would be against the British and Norwegians fighting to end Nazi rule. As for the civil war, I still need to work out what happens, but we can leave this open for a separate discussion at the moment.

I guess change discrimination with "lack of interest" (leaving them slightly worse off than the English) and partial segregation (giving more scholarships to English-speakers and the like). Any discrimination would be among the people, not the government.

I don't think I'm forgetting anything. I'll work on a finalized map soon, then we can move on to other issues. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 15:14, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Using that river as part of the border would be a plus.

Maudland and NS wouldn't be fighting.

Really, it being a border dispute would make annexation go over much better internationally.

A "stronger" Commonwealth... maybe some sort of permanent council for it.

No, not less desirable. Apologies, didn't realize that was where you were heading in that. New South Greenland is better.

Lordganon (talk) 13:57, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused here. What do you think is better for New South Greenland? It merging into Ognia or gaining independence? Because at this particular moment, I've begun to rework NSG back into Ognia. May you please clarify? -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 14:55, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

More realistic, independence. Lordganon (talk) 00:58, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely becoming a rare roller coaster ride. So now you think it would be "more realistic" for New South Greenland to be independent? By independent, are you referring to my original idea for NSG (i.e., a recycled Santiago) or doing so under differing circumstances (e.g., a British dominion, English republic)?
Like I stated before, I was beginning to reorient (re-canonize) NSG back into Ognia. the region back into Ognia. Will have to reorient my head once again, but I would like to gain more clarity on your part. By that I mean you believe this [once] British colony (likely of low population [compared to Eduarda or New Devon]) would prefer some form of independence over unification with Ognia. Would unification be out of the question as of now, or would it still be plausible? Or are you simply stating that both possibilities are alright (just re-opening independence as a possibility)?
Do forgive me, just wish to be as clear as possible. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 04:15, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Compared to a new Santiago or joining Ognia, independence of some sort is more plausible.

Think of it this way - while there would be a large minority of native population in the area, most of the residents are not going to be - they would be settlers from the UK (and other areas - Brits are good about that kind of thing) and more recently from SA.

Going their own way would be about the only compromise between them. Heck, even with time passing (A Latin majority is probably going to happen eventually) they would not be able to decide who to join.

Correct - I don't think unification with Ognia works.

Lordganon (talk) 23:50, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Flip flopping. XP To be honest, I was more shocked that you initially said it wasn't workable.
All in all, I really love your ethnographical description for NSG over my Neo-Santiago suggestion.
However I wish to be 100% sure as to what you mean (or rather you forgot to mention it). You're okay with NSG being an independent republic over a dominion, correct? Since you made mention that "going their own way would be about the only compromise between them" (which I interpret as an independent republic that's not British or South American). As you are well aware, I can't complain about a republic, but I wish to be sure (wouldn't surprise me either way).
Though when would you think this would happen? I still put it around the early 1900s (1900-1910 [as was Santiago]). Do you see this as too early?
I'm in the process of creating a new map, so I'll be sure to include this. Welcome to the fold, New South Greenland. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 03:26, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely sounding that way, eh?

Yeah - the numbers for a republic would definitely be a majority. You're not going to see large numbers from SA until well after WWII, though. Lots of areas in SA to settle first.

This area would be lower population than other areas, like Eduarda. But less problems than in New Devon, overall. At a guess, independence post-WWII, and shift to a republic in the 1980s.

Yeah, 1900s-1910s too early.

Lordganon (talk) 10:19, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

So a republic is okay. No problem. Though the timing seems a little odd for me, but I'll work it out a little. So by 1950 it becomes a dominion, and reorganizes into a republic by 1980. Reminds me of South Africa a little. While dominion status is easy to understand, I would suspect in this scenario that the growing non-English population (probably combined with the formation of the modern day Ognian Confederation around the 1970s) would contribute to a referendum which results in the formation of a republic. Sound good on your half?
As for population, in either scenario I wasn't thinking of a large population. As of now, I see it being close to (but smaller than) New Zealand's population (around 4 million IIRC). By comparison, this would make it the least populous Antarctic nation (though the South Pole and the sub-Antarctic islands would be smaller). -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 15:58, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

More or less, though lean more towards the immigrants as to why.

Probably about right for a population.

Lordganon (talk) 08:53, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Wildlife and Balleny

When is Antarctica gonna be defrosted in the remake? 50 million years ago or 20 thousand years ago? Truteal (talk) 04:27, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be unified with Ross (the island is too small in my view) Truteal (talk) 04:56, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make geographic sense. Size far less relevant than you think. Lordganon (talk) 10:14, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

"Defrosted"? (sorry, never heard that word to describe this timeline). At the moment, there is no solid POD, so I really can't answer your question in detail. I plan on opening a discussion about possible POD scenarios and Antarctic life as soon as the boundaries are set up. Until then, please be patient.
I originally wanted the Balleny Islands and the Ross Dependency to be a single entity, but kept getting shot down. The way I see it now is that the Balleny Islands were always British/Kiwi and would have a larger population. The islands of the Ross Dependency were originally claimed by the Russian Empire. They came under British control following the collapse of Russia in 1917, and the discovery and expansion of the island's oil reserves solidified them remaining so (with Bellinsgauzenia still holding formal claim to these islands). -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 15:36, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
In my view, the Balleny Islands should be a territory of New Zealand (like the Canadian territories) if it isn't already. Maybe the British would've preferred Ross Island to be a part of the British commonwealth instead of a part of New Zealand. What I meant when I said "defrosted" was when did it start to become habitable for life. For example, if Antarctica was never a icy wasteland, then it would be filled with Animals from Australia and pre-great American interchange South American Animals, but if it was thawed out around a million years ago or more, it would be mainly inhabited by flightless birds (like New Zealand) Truteal (talk) 03:40, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

The Balleny Islands (not to mention the Ross Dependency) ARE territories of New Zealand (comparable to Tokelau or the Ross Dependency OTL). Why would the British need the Ross Dependency when New Zealand can handle it for them? I really don't understand where you're coming from.

As stated before, there is no real POD for this timeline and I plan to write out my ideas for discussion in the near future. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 04:13, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because the British wanted the oil for themselves? (just spitballing) Truteal (talk) 04:39, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

The current timeline has it being ice-free for the last 20,000 years or so.

Oil would not be found in this area until long after NZ was given the islands. We're talking more like the 1980s.

Lordganon (talk) 08:50, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

POD Discussion

Greetings. Though it's been over a week since I said so, today I will begin a discussion on the POD of this timeline (Or rather I should say the lack of a POD). It's very funny to look back and realize I've never put that much thought into the POD on this timeline. Really, my only interest was the destination itself, not the journey it took to get there. Then again, that's pretty much how all my timelines got started, now that I think about it.

To be fair, I did play around with a few POD concepts, but none of them made enough sense for me to expand upon. IIRC, the first POD was that a meteor/asteroid crashes into Antarctica around the end of the last ice age, resulting in the warming of the continent. Just by reading this you can see it makes little sense (at least on the long run). The second concept was that a Gulf Stream-like scenario develops for the continent. In which warmer waters travel south and makes Antarctica warmer than it would otherwise be (pretty much the same as in Europe). The only problem with this scenario is that I know very little about the Gulf Stream to say whether or not another one could be made for Antarctica.

As of recently, I do think I may have stumbled upon a good direction to work from: volcanism. In this scenario, Antarctica is more geologically active than OTL, being comparable to Iceland. This activity would make the ground warmer for life, while the CO2 produced would create a mini-greenhouse affect for the region. While nowhere near enough to make Antarctica a tropical paradise, it would warm the continent enough to make it habitable for long term human habitation. The only problem with this scenario is that Iceland and Antarctica are not the same in regards to their geological origins. To simplify, Iceland is located on the boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The boundaries of these plates are hot enough to cause earthquakes (as along the Pacific Coast) and volcanism (as in the case with Iceland). By comparison, Antarctica is located well within own plate (whereas areas within a plate are usually calm).

Though on this note, I do have two possible scenarios which could possibly be used to "volcanize" Antarctica. Since this timeline is already ASB in regards to its environment, I doubt these concepts would make the timeline any more ASB. The first is that Antarctica is not comprised of just one, but two tectonic plates. IIRC, I do believe at one point in the past East and West Antarctica were separated, and I read that today they are gradually moving away from each other (read more). Though the problem with this is that I don't understand plate tectonics enough to just go and redraw these boundaries.

However, the next scenario I believe may be the most workable and simplest answer to go with: Hotspots! In this scenario, the regions beneath Antarctica (or rather the South Pole) would have larger deposits of magma from the Earth's crust. These mantle plumes rise up and would completely change the surface crust. Unlike plate boundaries, these hotspots can exist well within a continental plate. The most noted examples of this happening are in Yellowstone (noted for its Supervolcano), Hawaii, and the historic Siberian Traps). To help bolster this idea, there exists two such hotspots within Antarctica (the Balleny Islands and Ross Island) and there exists a theory that these plumes may be the origin of the Transantarctic Mountains.

This scenario should help keep the continent habitable enough without completely altering the history of the Earth all that much. The only foreseeable issue with this is that such volcanic activity would've happened much earlier in Earth's history (earlier than the last Ice Age). I'm not sure how these plumes would form, but this may mean that the continent's history would be more altered than what already exists. It is because of this I will be opening this discussion to all critiques, suggestions, and opinions to help me out. Thank you all for reading this discussion, and I look forward to any and all responses. Talk soon. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 15:33, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

The conditions that would have produced a warmer Siberia-like Antarctica were all prehistorical, so it really does not matter too much what happened, only that, for this timeline they did. We know that Siberia and Greenland were once quite a bit warmer, so there are forces on the earth that could bring about an alternate past.  Volcanism is a very good possibility.  My earlier suggestion to leave it a mystery should be good enough for this wiki.
We cannot escape ASB with anything other than human (or at least sentient animals) interacting in different ways.  That is the nature of quantum changes -- brain activity changing things in the outside world. That is my layman's one sentence understanding of it, anyway.  We call it "free will" and we affect things everyday with the decisions we make. The alternative to alternate universes is "parallel" universes in which things just "happen" differently.  I was racking my brain the other day while watching "Fringe" on Netflix trying to figure out a POD.  Then I realized, it was not an alternate history, but a parallel one.
Well, that's my two cents worth.  Take it for what it is worth.  SouthWriter (talk) 02:05, June 28, 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised to see the "keep it a mystery" scenario still has support. Would've guessed it was going to be opposed for the most part.
Pretty much all alternate histories are taking place in a parallel universe (at least that's what The Doctor tells me). Though I tend to like my brain not being a pool of jello due to thinking about this, so I'll just leave it at that. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 02:59, June 29, 2014 (UTC)

Comet/meteor/asteroid would be a bit much.

Don't see how such a stream could form.

Volcanism is better, though really not necessary. You'd see more of a geographic impact (at least on a local level) in that case at a minimum. Would be even more the case with hotspots.

As South said, just leave it a mystery. Better that way with timelines like this.

Lordganon (talk) 12:58, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Climate Map

Hello. I was wondering, given the reboot, if someone could provide a new climate map of TTL Antarctica? That would be of great help.

--GR1995

I haven't gotten around to designing one as of yet, you will have to be patient (but one is coming). -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 22:31, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to seeing it. Lordganon (talk) 11:09, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Football in Antarctica

So I've become a bit obsessed with football once again. I just want to know a few things about football in, well, Antarctica.

  • Will every country on Antarctica have football teams? If so, how good are they compared to OTL teams?
  • Since Antarctica is considered a continent, can football teams from the Antarctic compete in international tournaments like the World Cup? If so, how many slots will Antarctica take up?

Not really sure how to best phrase these questions, and these are just my best approximations for what I really want to say. But you're welcome to interpret them any way you like. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 05:30, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I personally don't like sports, but I'll do my best to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
The fist question is easy: yes. I'm confident every Antarctic nation would have their own teams. I'm unaware if there's any country that doesn't compete.
As for how good these teams are... it depends. Most of the Antarctic nations (if not all of them) favor other sports than soccer. For instance, Bellinsgauzenia's top sport would be cycleball (which may also be the same for New Devon, Ognia, and New Swabia in many ways). So based on this, I'd suspect Antarctica would be no Brazil or Germany, but likely not as bad as the US (though we apparently did pretty good a few months ago). I'm confident they would all compete in some form or another.
As for slots... I don't really know what that means. So I guess that's all I can answer for now. But if you'd like, you are more than welcome to bring up suggestions and even write out an article about soccer in this timeline. -- NuclearVacuum Flag of Alaska (Russian America) 16:22, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

The performance of Antarctic teams is up for debate, but I'd imagine their performance would vary depending on their heritage and culture In some respects, as Nuke said. Some of the nations would probably be on par with some of the Asian Conference and South Pacific teams. For example if Kerguelen were to field a team they would probably be similar to OTL French overseas teams, like New Caledonia or French Polynesia. It would be interesting to see a continental governing body eventually form; "Conference of Antarctic Football" (COAF) perhaps, although more likely they'd probably not be a member of Fifa at first. You could also make it so that at some point the Antarctic conference merges with another, similar to how CONCACAF was made in the sixties. They'd probably merge with OFC and create a conference consisting of Antarctica and the Pacific, probably along the lines of "Conference of Oceania and Antarctic Association Football" (COOAAF). As for slots, perhaps take a slot from Europe and one from Africa and give them two, assuming any teams qualify. Anyway that is my thoughts on the matter. I hope that helps. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 17:15, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Suspect that the teams would be about the same quality as the majority of CONCACAF and the Oceanic group. That is, not so good.

What is meant by "slot" is spot in the World Cup. Each group gets a certain number of these.

Agreed, most likely you'd see them merge with the Oceania group. Numbers help. Probably a spot and a half (i.e. a playoff with another continental group) at the World Cup. Playoff likely with Europe, I imagine.

Unlikely that you would see any do better than the round of 16.

Lordganon (talk) 05:45, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I might start working on this within the week, following all the input I've been given as of this moment. Also, Nuke, I might reuse some of the people that used to be part of this TL but then became obsolete when you rebooted the TL. But I'm not gonna do anything with them until you say it's okay. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 12:16, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Edit: And here's my temporary rankings of all the Antarctic teams (but whether it's plausible or not is up to you; like I said, it's just temporary):

  • Eduarda
  • Maudland
  • New South Greenland
  • New Swabia
  • Ognia
  • New Devon
  • Kerguelen
  • Balleny
  • Ross
  • Bellinsgauzenia

Notes:

  • The South Pole is not included, although a case to include it can be made.
  • Kerguelen, the Balleny Islands, and the Ross Dependency are not affiliated with FIFA as of yet (but once again, if their inclusion is plausible, then so be it)
  • Despite Antarctica and Oceania joining together, both areas ran separate tournaments, with the Antarctic tourney being called the Antarctic Cup or something like that. A tournament that pits both Oceania and Antarctica against each other will be organized in the near future.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Work on this may start soon. Godfrey Raphael (talk) 13:22, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

If you need any help, I'd be happy to assist with making some of the teams. I know a good deal about football, and can set up some of the pages, or fill in information if you want. Let me know if I can be of any use. Mscoree (talk) 14:28, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Also in regards to Kerguelen, the Balleny Islands, and the Ross Dependency, they would probably participate in the Pacific Games (or whatever the Antarctic and/or Oceania games will be called). The Pacific Games were only recently made part of the qualification for the World Cup in 2007, during which they'd probably act like Tuvalu. Mscoree (talk) 14:44, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Bellinsgauzenia would be higher than that. Question of population size, if nothing else.

They would be affiliated with it in some capacity, though would really not participate. Consider it something like the microstates in Europe in that regard.

Each holding their own tournaments, and then the top finishers (fourish in each) playing for the spots, sounds good.

Lordganon (talk) 08:04, October 24, 2014 (UTC)



Disney Parks in Antartica


I coiuld see Disney eventualluy building a park in Antarctica, being they are building them all over the world. I am thinking Disney would likely have a park somewhere in New South Greenland.


173.8.73.179 05:26, February 20, 2016 (UTC)