Unfortunate geographic losers

[Patroklos]

When you read through history there are generally certain people's or series of people's who seem to get the short end of the stick. Not necessarily because they are militarily weak, poor or technologically backwards, not because they are particularly hated, but rather because if where they are located constantly putting them at the crossroads of conflict.

We all know about the Poles, the Baltics. Some are unfamiliar with the various trials of the Low Countries. Most are unfamiliar with the history of Armenia and Korea.

We have a lot of history addicts around here, what unlucky groups have you encounters who seemed doomed by geography?

 

[Traitorfish]

By "geography", do you mean physical geography, political geography, or something between the two? I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's a pretty major distinction, given the permanence of the one and the transience of the other.

 

[Patroklos]

Primarily the first, but many times the first dictated the second.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Well the environment shaped the histories of everyone on the planet. (Captain Obvious here) Anyone not in Eurasia has been unfortunate geographically.

Erm for more specific examples, Catalonia, Euskara, Savoy, anything unfortunate enough to come across the Ottoman Empire or Russia.

 

[Cheetah]

It's an interesting thing to consider. I'm not gonna come up with more examples, but I'd like to add another aspect of it:

People who 'live in the middle' of other people are also living in the middle of the trade and progression going on between those 'outer' peoples. Which means that in many cases they can also count on advancing at the same speed as the neighbours. Being placed in between isn't necessarily a losing position.

As such, I can think of everything from Mesopotamia and Northern Italy to Skåne and Korea...

I suppose that what makes some in-betweeners losers and others winners, is the geographical features of the middle-area. Korea for instance, while traditionally being situated between China and Japan, is lucky enough that the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan give them some protection that makes it possible for them to maintain their independence (most of the time).

Poland on the other hand I has no real geographical barriers that makes it easier to defend themselves. But then again, the Poles have managed to exist as their own entity for quite a few centuries, while many other 'in between' people have not been so lucky...

 

[Arwon]

Russians and their ancestors living on a vast indefensible plain where the only method of defence was retreat and scorched earth is one which springs to mind.

 

[bombshoo]

"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States..."

 

[Traitorfish]

Primarily the first, but many times the first dictated the second.

But in the first two examples you give, Poland-Lithuania and the Low Countries, physical geography is a conditioning rather that determining factor in their marginalisation. Both the Netherlands and Poland-Lithuania were, you'll remember, significant regional powers until the 17th century, and unless there's something that I'm missing, I don't see their decline as any foregone conclusion. (Not least because of the extent to which dynastic politics influenced contemporary European political geography- the Anglo-Dutch rivalry would have take a very different form if the English hadn't been able to occupy a hegemonic position over the Scots, for example.) Again, I don't mean to be pedantic for its own sake, but we can't simply assume the role played by physical geography to be paramount. (In my defence, I haven't asked about the definition of "peoples", so at least I'm showing some restraint. )

Russians and their ancestors living on a vast indefensible plain where the only method of defence was retreat and scorched earth is one which springs to mind.

And yet they ended up, for a while, as one of the foremost powers on Earth. So the relationship between physical geography and political outcomes is apparently quite complicated.

 

[madviking]

Isn't geography-craps one of the premises of Guns, Germs, and Steel?

 

[Cutlass]

Being pretty much anywhere in the Americas was a losing proposition for the Indians after 1492. But America's position has been a win for the US. We've got the biggest moats, after all.

 

[Patroklos]

I don't think there have been many armies roving between Texas and Guatemala.

I'll add the Balkins, it wasn't pleasant to be in the most obvious line of march between the Ottoman and Austrian Empires (nor the Byzantium and the Visogoths earlier. To a lesser extent Greece for the same reason, thoug Greece held there own during some of history DES I've being at the crossroads of Empires wanted to use to move between Asia and Europe.

 

[Arwon]

And yet they ended up, for a while, as one of the foremost powers on Earth. So the relationship between physical geography and political outcomes is apparently quite complicated.

I've seen it reasonably convincingly argued that the situation of people living in that part of the world basically made a "self defence = territory = expansive autocracy" equivalency very sensible. Control the entire plain and the points of entry and you're safe.

 

[Patroklos]

Being pretty much anywhere in the Americas was a losing proposition for the Indians after 1492. But America's position has been a win for the US. We've got the biggest moats, after all.

I don't thing geography had much to do with their misfortune unless you mean which ones got contacted first due to resources and natural harbors. Economics, pathogen resistance and technology were the source of their woes, but I guess you can blame the oceans for their relative backwardness in those three.

 

[Patroklos]

But in the first two examples you give, Poland-Lithuania and the Low Countries, physical geography is a conditioning rather that determining factor in their marginalisation. Both the Netherlands and Poland-Lithuania were, you'll remember, significant regional powers until the 17th century, and unless there's something that I'm missing, I don't see their decline as any foregone conclusion. (Not least because of the extent to which dynastic politics influenced contemporary European political geography- the Anglo-Dutch rivalry would have take a very different form if the English hadn't been able to occupy a hegemonic position over the Scots, for example.) Again, I don't mean to be pedantic for its own sake, but we can't simply assume the role played by physical geography to be paramount. (In my defence, I haven't asked about the definition of "peoples", so at least I'm showing some restraint. )


And yet they ended up, for a while, as one of the foremost powers on Earth. So the relationship between physical geography and political outcomes is apparently quite complicated.

Just becaue you are up in the second quarter, doesn't mean you are up at the end of the fourth

I think Poland has suffered more from their position at the border of the Russian plains and Northern European forests than they have benefitted. They have had their moments though, it's just that the negative ones are considered watersheds in history.

 

[NetGear]

Political landscape is far more important than physical. Compare the different era of same region. Location doesnt change, yet you get all sorts of feats and failures from the same place.

Korea is not a good example since they have had difficulty for awhile fighting of foreign influence. If it wasnt the mongols it was ming, than qing than japan and to lesser degree us today.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Just becaue you are up in the second quarter, doesn't mean you are up at the end of the fourth

I think Poland has suffered more from their position at the border of the Russian plains and Northern European forests than they have benefitted. They have had their moments though, it's just that the negative ones are considered watersheds in history.

Poland was also for a good time the power balance in Europe, a result from being in such a central location. When Poland fell it created a power vacuum where Prussia and Austria came the better of which was probably a catalyst for a lot of later events in European history. (Including Poland being unable to regain independence until WWI.)

I'd say it was also unfortunate how Poland was located shore-wise. Who knows, we could've seen Polish colonization had Denmark not existed. At the very least though, more access to the Baltic Sea would've been great trade-wise.

 

[Cheetah]

Korea is not a good example since they have had difficulty for awhile fighting of foreign influence. If it wasnt the mongols it was ming, than qing than japan and to lesser degree us today.

But unlike all the other tribes who lived on the Chinese plains, the Koreans still exist.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Scandinavia? Prior to the Napoleonic Wars its nations tried hard, and to a certain extent succeeded, to project power onto the rest of Europe and the world, but they all have low populations with large sections of land north of the arctic circle, and haven't been quite so lucky since.

 

[Arwon]

Within the Americas there's very significant variation in the fate of native peoples in terms of displacement and marginalisation.

At one end of the spectrum you have the Guarani in Paraguay whose language is the official and most widely spoken language there Paraguay, including by people of Spanish rather than indigenous background. At the other end you have the various groups who were completely wiped out.

I get the impression, just based on the contemporary nature of the Americas, that more severe decimation and destruction (physical and cultural) happened in North America, the Carribbean and the Southern Cone of Latin America, but I don't have any actual evidence or research on that.

But generally: being on land Europeans wanted badly and could occupy easily was worse for you than living somewhere marginal or defensible. Another example is Indigenous Australians vs Maori in New Zealand.

 

[Patroklos]

Scandinavia? Prior to the Napoleonic Wars its nations tried hard, and to a certain extent succeeded, to project power onto the rest of Europe and the world, but they all have low populations with large sections of land north of the arctic circle, and haven't been quite so lucky since.

Nobody like tundra in their start location.