# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  European border changes in the last 1000 years

## Maleth



----------


## albanopolis

> 


Borders are a recent phenomenon. 18th century invention. There is not such a thing as 1000 yrs borders!

----------


## Maleth

> Borders are a recent phenomenon. 18th century invention. There is not such a thing as 1000 yrs borders!


You might be partially correct. The industrial revolution has certainly urged a sense to refine the definition of a border, in relation to the big change in general economics (travel, manufacturing and so on) of the times besides the growth of populations during that period. Prior to that I have no doubt that example the Normans and Aragonese kingdom and so many others knew well the borders of their territories and also gave the lands within them names (that are still with us today) . They have also been expanded if they had strong armies and new territories have been absorbed in the new kingdoms. 

However I have no doubt that a group of city states with a common ruler and culture, understood well where the confines of the kingdom was. Not to mention the Greeks and the Romans and so many empires that preceded them. Those would have been borders too.

----------


## LeBrok

> Borders are a recent phenomenon. 18th century invention. There is not such a thing as 1000 yrs borders!


There were many precise borders of the past, often by natural means like rivers, seas or mountain ridges. I'm sure you can find descriptions of borders in Roman treaties with other empires and nations. However when we go to bronze age or neolithic where city states dominated landscape, or between nomadic tribes, the notion of borders become very fuzzy. Having said that, people are very territorial in nature and for that reason ownership of claims to certain lands always existed, even if there were not clear borders painted on the ground.

----------


## Maleth

> There were many precise borders of the past, often by natural means like rivers, seas or mountain ridges. I'm sure you can find descriptions of borders in Roman treaties with other empires and nations.


Hadrians wall in North England (in regards to the Romans) and the Great wall of China (in regards to the Manchu invasions) are good examples of ancient borders

----------


## albanopolis

> Hadrians wall in North England (in regards to the Romans) and the Great wall of China (in regards to the Manchu invasions) are good examples of ancient borders


Borders can not be changed in today's world. Before they would change everyday. Let say a German with money would pay a Frenchman and take his land possessions and add it to the German territory. So there were no borders.

----------


## Maleth

> Borders can not be changed in today's world. Before they would change everyday. Let say a German with money would pay a Frenchman and take his land possessions and add it to the German territory. So there were no borders.


We had changes till recently like the breakdown of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. We might still have Catalan and Scottish independence. So borders can be redefined. Probably you would have more protocol these days then any other time in history. Before borders were changed for various reasons such as sale (as you mentioned) aggression and war, also by invitation as protectorates but of course become part of that particular kingdom.

----------


## LeBrok

> Borders can not be changed in today's world. Before they would change everyday. Let say a German with money would pay a Frenchman and take his land possessions and add it to the German territory. So there were no borders.


There is no definition saying that borders are forever and have universal/giving by god character. Changing borders are still borders, where one country ends another starts and we need permission to cross it.

----------


## Aberdeen

In the past, tribes and nations always assumed that the borders they had managed to create would be eternal, until someone came along and changed them. Such an event was often cause for tribal or national trauma. When the Roman emperor decided to abandoned Rome's German territories and set a "permanent boundary" along the Rhine/Rhone, after the Roman defeat in the Teutoburg Forest, it was seen by Romans as a necessity but a serious defeat for the empire. But of course the permanent boundary didn't stop the German tribes during the Migration Period.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

Some Irish county borders are in exactly the same place where they were during bronze and iron age. 

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/300...237406461.html

----------


## Maleth

> Some Irish county borders are in exactly the same place where they were during bronze and iron age. 
> 
> http://www.irishcentral.com/news/300...237406461.html


I presume that can happen in some regions. Portugal seems to have been a pretty constant one too. However its amazing how fragmented Germany was (and at some point north Italy too) from the 1400's to the 1700's. It must have been a very turbulent time in that region. 

Unfortunately the Video link of changing borders seem not to be working but its on youtube now if one puts the same title.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

30 years war. Caused almost complete change in population in the Central Europe. The bloodiest European war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

----------


## LeBrok

> 30 years war. Caused almost complete change in population in the Central Europe. The bloodiest European war.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War


What is your base in your assumption that population change (if you mean replacement) has occurred?

----------


## Maleth

> 30 years war. Caused almost complete change in population in the Central Europe. The bloodiest European war.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War


Not a happy state to be living in of course. However as Lebrok indicates, I dont think there would have been mass population changes. Lots of fear, insecurity, blood shed and intimidation perhaps and all the ripple effects and resentment for the years that followed. 

Its just another good reason to appreceate the EU more and the obvious benefits it has brought about compared to any negative ones.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

The records of depopulation. Look at the map on the wiki page. For instance Pomerania lost over 60% of its population. This is the map of the depopulation of the lands which today comprise Germany. Dark brown areas lost over 60% of the population...

Straty_ludnościowe_po_wojnie_30letniej.PNG

Estimated death toll in Europe during 30 years war was up to 11 million people. That leaves a lot of empty land which gets populated by someone else, hence population change. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Protestantism originated among the west Slavic population. 




> *Jan Hus (Czech pronunciation: [ˈjan ˈɦus] ( listen); c. 1369 – 6 July 1415), often referred to in English as John Hus or John Huss, was aCzech priest, philosopher, reformer and master at Charles University in Prague. After John Wycliffe, the theorist of ecclesiastical Reformation, Hus is considered the first Church reformer, as he lived before Luther, Calvin and Zwingli....
> 
> *Jan Hus was a key contributor to Protestantism, whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe and on Martin Luther himself. The Hussite Wars resulted in the Basel Compacts which allowed for a reformed church in the Kingdom of Bohemia—almost a century before such developments would take place in the Lutheran Reformation. The Unitas Fratrum (or Moravian Church) considers itself a spiritual heir to many of Hus' followers.[10] Hus' extensive writings earn him a prominent place in Czech literary history.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus

They continued to support anti Catholic ideas and were in large numbers fighting for the protestant side. As a consequence they were some of the greatest victims of the 30 years war. We see this from the huge number of Slavic place names in the areas of Central Europe where after the 30 years war we find no Slavic population. 

Also 15th century sees the end of Serbian medieval State. Mass exodus from the Balkans into Hungary, Romania, Poland, Russia, Italy, Austria....Then Turkish invasion of Panonia. Even more people on the move, more border changes...

Actually if you look at the total number of people who were killed starting with the 30 years war in Europe, we can't say that we have any idea who lived where in Central Europe before that, as the most casualties were in the area of Central Europe. Just take all the "German" and "Slavic" and "Jewish" people killed in the second world war in Central Europe...Just that would change the genetic picture drastically. Where are all the other wars before that...

----------


## Angela

From a soon to be published paper, another perspective on whether modern genomes generally match (or not)modern nations: 

 _Fine-scale population structure in Europe. S. Leslie, G. Hellenthal, S. Myers, P. Donnelly, International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium.__ There is considerable interest in detecting and interpreting fine-scale population structure in Europe: as a signature of major events in the history of the populations of Europe, and because of the effect undetected population structure may have on disease association studies. Population structure appears to have been a minor concern for most of the recent generation of genome-wide association studies, but is likely to be important for the next generation of studies seeking associations to rare variants. Thus far, genetic studies across Europe have been limited to a small number of markers, or to methods that do not specifically account for the correlation structure in the genome due to linkage disequilibrium. Consequently, these studies were unable to group samples into clusters of similar ancestry on a fine (within country) scale with any confidence. We describe an analysis of fine-scale population structure using genome-wide SNP data on 6,209 individuals, sampled mostly from Western Europe. Using a recently published clustering algorithm (fineSTRUCTURE), adapted for specific aspects of our analysis, the samples were clustered purely as a function of genetic similarity, without reference to their known sampling locations. When plotted on a map of Europe one observes a striking association between the inferred clusters and geography. Interestingly, for the most part modern country boundaries are significant i.e. we see clear evidence of clusters that exclusively contain samples from a single country._* 

At a high level we see: the Finns are the most differentiated from the rest of Europe (as might be expected); a clear divide between Sweden/Norway and the rest of Europe (including Denmark); and an obvious distinction between southern and northern Europe. We also observe considerable structure within countries on a hitherto unseen fine-scale - for example genetically distinct groups are detected along the coast of Norway.*_ Using novel techniques we perform further analyses to examine the genetic relationships between the inferred clusters. We interpret our results with respect to geographic and linguistic divisions, as well as the historical and archaeological record. We believe this is the largest detailed analysis of very fine-scale human genetic structure and its origin within Europe. Crucial to these findings has been an approach to analysis that accounts for linkage disequilibrium._

We'll have to wait for the paper to get the details. It should be interesting. 

Of course, I think we have to keep in mind that if you get to a fine enough level of resolution it's long been known that you could get down to very specific sub-sub-sub clusters in certain areas of Europe. (After all, we have unique DNA as individuals, our family members are a cluster, my maternal ancestral village will form a cluster, etc. etc.) The only real importance, for me, at least, is in so far as it elucidates migrations and gene flows. As an example, there have been long standing debates as to whether there is substructure within Sardinia, a very specific and isolated cluster. A soon to be published paper seems to indicate, from the abstract, that there is substructure and a difference between isolated regions in the interior and other parts of Sardinia.

----------


## LeBrok

> The records of depopulation. Look at the map on the wiki page. For instance Pomerania lost over 60% of its population. This is the map of the depopulation of the lands which today comprise Germany. Dark brown areas lost over 60% of the population...
> 
> Straty_ludnościowe_po_wojnie_30letniej.PNG
> 
> Estimated death toll in Europe during 30 years war was up to 11 million people. *That leaves a lot of empty land which gets populated by someone else*, hence population change. 
> 
> .


 No it doesn't. It can be repopulated by remaining original occupants of this land after the war. To prove repopulation you need historical records about new settlers in these areas or genetic study pointing to shift in DNA pool. In lack of both it is only your guess, and you can't categorically state population change.

----------


## Maleth

Very interesting links oldeuropeancultrue Thanks. I feel the more I read about occupations and wars, that more or less when an army invades a territory with a significant population, the trend was to leave a number of soldiers and generals stationed in that partiular area, taking control the helms of the territory / city / country (depending on the age when this happened). (This would leave a minimal genetic impact. 2 to 5% I would say. It also depends on the population size of the newly occupied areas of course)

Mass migrations seem to have happened only when there were cataclysmic events such as drought or famine or any other reason where the land could not support life anymore. I am under the impression that by human nature people prefer to live 'comfortably' in the area they were born in, rather having to move to other totaly new areas.(if it happened, it happened in small doses) This is only done in sheer necessasity. 

Culture influence is a different thing though. People have been able to adapt a certain cultural influence from neibouring kingdoms or empires without having to repopulate whole areas for a particular type of culture to take over. I would imagine that cultural influence would take place to the practicality of a particular system and particular products that now would be more easily available. 

I have a feeling this is the pattern we see most of the time* (that is before travel has been revolutionised to the way we know it today) 
*

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

LeBrok, you said: "you can't categorically state population change". Precisely for the same reason you can't claim otherwise. But, I have confirmed examples of complete depopulation and consequent population change from many religious wars around the world. It is actually an intended goal of religious wars, elimination of the opposing population:

1. Austrian - Turkish wars of the 17th century left Serbian lowlands completely depopulated. Most of the population was killed or emigrated to Hungary, Austria and Russia. The area was populated by mountain people from Bosnia and Bulgaria, to the point that we have no idea who medieval Serbs were genetically.
2. Greek Turkish war after the first world war. Complete population exchange and replacement.
3. Armenian genocide - Complete population replacement
4. Expulsion of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Complete population replacement.
5. Holocaust, complete population replacement
6. Jewish expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, complete population replacement
7. Cathar crusade, complete population replacement
8. Cromwell invasion, Irish famine ,almost complete population replacement in parts of Ireland
9. harrowing of the north and consequent English civil war, almost complete population replacement in parts of northern England
10. Huguenot wars, huge population movement from france to England
11. Reconquesta, rechristianization of Spain, almost complete population replacement in southern Spain
.....

Why do you think that 30 year war, which is known as one of the most cruel, bestial wars, which had set new standards in human cruelty towards innocent civilians, had different outcome? Slavs and Germans fought on both sides. Croats, who fought for the catholic side, were remembered as particularly bloodthirsty in their dealing with protestants, german or slavic. There is old testament in Germany about Croatians, carved words in stone of old German church, and words says: "God save us from plague, hunger, wars and Croats"

Many of today croatians and europe, forgotten about reputation of croatian soldiers/warriors which were common knowledge once in western europe... For examble, in 18 and 19 century in Bavaria (Germany), Belgium and in Austria, parents would scare their children if they don't want to go in bed with sentences as: "be good and go to sleep or croatians will come for you"


And children would be scared and went to bed like someone mentioned devil himself... I am just writing this so you can get a point how common that fact about croatian warriors was back than...

This means that who ever repopulated the central Europe could have also been mixed ethnically. But the fact remains that the population of Central Europe was dramatically changed over last 400 years.

----------


## LeBrok

> LeBrok, you said: "you can't categorically state population change". Precisely for the same reason *you can't claim otherwise*. But, I have confirmed examples of complete depopulation and consequent population change from many religious wars around the world. It is actually an intended goal of religious wars, elimination of the opposing population:


 I'm not claiming that it is otherwise. I'm stating that there is *a possibility* that population wasn't replaced in lack of genetic or historical records. I just can't figure out why you are so sure of this population replacement?





> 1. Austrian - Turkish wars of the 17th century left Serbian lowlands completely depopulated. Most of the population was killed or emigrated to Hungary, Austria and Russia. The area was populated by mountain people from Bosnia and Bulgaria, to the point that we have no idea who medieval Serbs were genetically.
> 2. Greek Turkish war after the first world war. Complete population exchange and replacement.
> 3. Armenian genocide - Complete population replacement
> 4. Expulsion of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Complete population replacement.
> 5. Holocaust, complete population replacement
> 6. Jewish expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, complete population replacement
> 7. Cathar crusade, complete population replacement
> 8. Cromwell invasion, Irish famine ,almost complete population replacement in parts of Ireland
> 9. harrowing of the north and consequent English civil war, almost complete population replacement in parts of northern England
> ...


 Half of these examples are not religious wars, just saying. Some of them are true and documented population replacements indeed. But they don't make your assumption about Central Europe population replacement true.




> Why do you think that 30 year war, which is known as one of the most cruel, bestial wars, which had set new standards in human cruelty towards innocent civilians, had different outcome? Slavs and Germans fought on both sides. Croats, who fought for the catholic side, were remembered as particularly bloodthirsty in their dealing with protestants, german or slavic. There is old testament in Germany about Croatians, carved words in stone of old German church, and words says: "God save us from plague, hunger, wars and Croats"
> 
> Many of today croatians and europe, forgotten about reputation of croatian soldiers/warriors which were common knowledge once in western europe... For examble, in 18 and 19 century in Bavaria (Germany), Belgium and in Austria, parents would scare their children if they don't want to go in bed with sentences as: "be good and go to sleep or croatians will come for you"
> 
> 
> And children would be scared and went to bed like someone mentioned devil himself... I am just writing this so you can get a point how common that fact about croatian warriors was back than...
> 
> This means that who ever repopulated the central Europe could have also been mixed ethnically.


Are you saying that these bad Croats killed and replaced a population somewhere?




> But the fact remains that the population of Central Europe was dramatically changed over last 400 years.


 Still waiting for this shred of document proving it, or genetic research if you will.

----------


## oldeuropeanculture

> Are you saying that these bad Croats killed and replaced a population somewhere?


These bad croats were just an example that population was mixed on both sides of the 30 year war. Slavs fought for both catholic and protestant armies and and were killed by both sides. And so were all the other populations. You are missing the point here. This is not about slavs being replaced by germans or what ever. This is about the fact that there were such huge population movements in last 400 hundred years in Europe, that any analysis based on today's data is questionable. There was documented population replacement in all the above conflicts. I really don't understand what more you want. No one counted blood cells of people who left and people who came, and that is a completely different issue. 




> Half of these examples are not religious wars


All of these examples involved opposing armies consisting of people of different, opposing religious views. So they were in effect religious wars.

----------


## slowder

Always after every war border was changes, unfortunately has always been like that so and will continue

----------

