Image talk:British Empire Anachronous 2.PNG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This map that here has been represented gives a distorted image of the Briton Empire. So have The Netherlands never been conquered by the English nor had they any military control over Dutch soil. Also westerly Germany has never been under control of the English as to call it part of the British Empire. Army movements in Germany and Italy do not count for colonies or part of Empire. Furthermore the protectorates in Africa have the same color as the normal colonies. Islanublar

I think the Netherlands is referring to William III as a stadtholder and western Germany as George III being King of Hanover. The coloured parts of Italy and Austria aren't in the same colour as the colonies either. All in all, the map is completely anachronous and simply showing the total extent of English and British influence in the world. Craigy (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Germany probably represents the British occupation zone, post-WWII. I find the map very useful, for its purpose, although I'm not certain that the British ever wielded such influence west of the thirteen American colonies. --Peter Farago 01:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

One question I do have, however, is: What is the bright pink (#ff81c1) color meant to represent? It includes Iceland, Syria, Lebanon, Madagascar, Persia, and Southern Indochina, among other areas. --Peter Farago 01:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The map does not indicate the British involvement in Tibet in the early 20th Century. 217.34.229.213 16:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the colours to be too close to each other, it is difficult to distinguish them from each other. Some greater colour difference or colour variation would be welcome so that one can get a good overview at a glance already. TimSE 05:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot, for the life of me locate light pink and pink. And what the hell is salmon?--Muchosucko 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Muchosucko, look on Iran and Ethiopia, I believe that is "light pink". Then look on India and that is "pink". The western US and Afghanistan look to be "red" and northwest Germany must be "salmon" while France and the Netherlands must be "lavender"

Is southern Japan "light pink" or "salmon"? Salmon would be so much better as Japan has vibrant fisheries. What colours are the Philippines and Cuba, and the Caribbean islands east of Cuba? --Muchosucko 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Japan is salmon, for the Caribbean islands just click for the enlarged version

[edit] The color scheme is unacceptable

This is worse than some textbooks I've had. There are blues, greens, yellows, oranges, even violets, not to mention the neutral colors—surely there is no reason why we have to stick so closely to red! What about people who have difficulty discerning minor contrast? This map would appear to be all the same color to them. It's difficult enough for someone who doesn't to tell the difference, nonetheless remember what each shade of pink represents. Screw the "always represent the British empire in pink" crap—it doesn't exist anymore, so who cares!—Kbolino 08:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

To include parts of France that were ruled by English kings on a map of the British Empire is ridiculous in the extreme. The concept of the British Empire just does not apply in any way to that period - (a) there was no concept of Britain, and (b) there was no concept of any part of it having an empire at that stage (even if you blur the distinction of England vs Britain). Furthermore, whilst imperial possessions of the Axis powers that were temporarily administered by the British may be candidates for inclusion in this map (because they were part of one Empire before, and administered as part of another afterwards), militarily occupied zones of the Axis powers themselves should certainly not be included. A good rule of thumb for inclusion in this map might be whether the territories came under the jurisdiction of the British Secretary of State for the Colonies. Gsd2000 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see that nothing links to this image. Phew. Gsd2000 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)