It depends on how badly Europeans wanted what was there. In a number of places the Indians were essentially enslaved, but enough of them survived so that their culture and language had chances to survive. Other places were inaccessible and undesirable enough so that they fell through the cracks. But often the people in those regions were people driven out of other areas.
Unfortunate geographic losers
- Thread starter Patroklos
- Start date
It depends on how badly Europeans wanted what was there. In a number of places the Indians were essentially enslaved, but enough of them survived so that their culture and language had chances to survive. Other places were inaccessible and undesirable enough so that they fell through the cracks. But often the people in those regions were people driven out of other areas.
Cheetah
Deity
Scandinavia is the opposite of what Patroklos was going for, isn't it?
It's at the outskirts of Europe, and (excluding parts of Denmark) it is separated from the reat of Europe by water. Quite a lucky position defense-wise, if not economically.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
A fair point, but I don't think that social and political structure can be reduced to a mere survival strategy. That supposes some sort of concious political actors in itself, and the associated polities in which they are based, which is at least as much a determining aspect in political development as broad geography. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the notion of "doom", but geography doesn't seem to me a paramount feature here.
Well, as I said, geography is obviously a conditioning factor in all cases, so you could certainly argue that the geography of Poland-Lithuania prevented a sufficient degree of political unity, limited the resources they were able to marshal, etc. but I don't think it follows from that the inhabitants of the area were always going to experience foreign domination. That makes a number of further assumptions about the geography in both Germany and Russia, and its propensity to produce powerful states. (As Arwon says, there may be some basis for arguing this for Russia, but I don't see one for Germany, and you really need both to see the sort of decline experienced by Poland-Lithuania.)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.
Anyway, without getting too far down the line of arguing about Poland-Lithuania, the point is that the relationship between physical and political geography isn't immediately apparent. Polities aren't atomic, they're part of a sprawling totality in which all components influence all others, so any geographic theory about A has to take into account B, C and D, and each of these tends to produce an X, Y and Z of their own.
Germany suffered from constant meddling of foreign powers. Being in the centre of Europe, with powerful countries to the West (France) and to the East (Russians) and at times even to the North (Sweden) puts Germany in a rather challenging position.
NetGear
King
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 729
Sure, but we're talking about independence, not annihilation. Going from major power in the region to bouncing vassal/tributary state on the revolving political landscape isnt what id call totally independent throughout history. Not to mention that japanese just century ago tried to wipe them out by erading their culture and annexing them outright. South part is doing well today but theyre still dealing with china/us playing the age old game.
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
You might also talk about the reverse thing happening. Like Britain being isolated from the rest of Europe, so they could spend less time on self-defense and more on colonizing the world. Or Russia during WWII, where the winter made it hard for the Germans.
If any country was cursed by its geography, it had to be Germany. I think the two countries most blessed were Britain and America.
However, the Easter Islanders can probably field a claim for worst geography ever, although they were never a country as such.
However, the Easter Islanders can probably field a claim for worst geography ever, although they were never a country as such.
Most of these examples are weak for one reason or another. The Netherlands did well out of its 'weak' position astride two of the largest river mouths in Europe with access to the sea, rich polder lands to reclaim and a whole host of other factors that made invading them difficult. So much so even while fighting an existential war for survival against the Habsburg Empire the Dutch still managed to become wealthier.
Hell Sweden benefited from being on the Baltic and made good use of that position during the 30 Years War and in its many subsequent wars all the way till the Great Northern War. Moreover, the low relative populations of the Swedes forced them to mobilise their population in a far more intensive fashion. This allowed them to punch above their weight in a way that more heavily populated countries - who couldn't make the change - struggled to do. That's one reason why Swedish arms could run riot around the Holy Roman Empire and detach at various times about half of it from the Emperor's grasp.
Even France's geography has some terrible elements like its defensibility. There's literally nothing wast of the Rhine to stop an invasion until one hits the Meuse and Paris. This goes some way to explaining the amount of cash paid out for fortresses like Verdun, the sole purpose of which was to put a roadblock up in otherwise uninspiring defensive country. Germany after 1871 by contrast had superb defences in the wast, centred on the Vosges which the French in 1914 struggled to break through. Fall Gelb goes to show just how problematic this could be for France.
In terms of Britain, it could hide across the channel at various times. That's all well and good. However, the English was incapable of imposing its will on France during the 100 Years War because it lacked the population and potential resources needed to hold down the place - a consequence of its geographic endowment. Even a successful battle like Crecy could be wasted for lack of an ability to push the envelope. Likewise, the English had an unenviable time putting down the Scots, Welsh and Irish peoples whom, on balance, we don't tend to credit with having welcoming geographic conditions.
Even something negative like the mountainous of Spain - a major impediment to the centralisation of power throughout much of its history - has positive features like the good defensive conditions it provided for use against figures like Napoleon. Besides, whose to say that centralisation is unambiguously a Good Thing; I live in a comparatively decentralised state - Australia - and shudder at the thought of increasing centralisation, while others elsewhere do just the opposite. Heck, I might not even agree with my own countrymen let alone a foreigner.
Hell Sweden benefited from being on the Baltic and made good use of that position during the 30 Years War and in its many subsequent wars all the way till the Great Northern War. Moreover, the low relative populations of the Swedes forced them to mobilise their population in a far more intensive fashion. This allowed them to punch above their weight in a way that more heavily populated countries - who couldn't make the change - struggled to do. That's one reason why Swedish arms could run riot around the Holy Roman Empire and detach at various times about half of it from the Emperor's grasp.
Even France's geography has some terrible elements like its defensibility. There's literally nothing wast of the Rhine to stop an invasion until one hits the Meuse and Paris. This goes some way to explaining the amount of cash paid out for fortresses like Verdun, the sole purpose of which was to put a roadblock up in otherwise uninspiring defensive country. Germany after 1871 by contrast had superb defences in the wast, centred on the Vosges which the French in 1914 struggled to break through. Fall Gelb goes to show just how problematic this could be for France.
In terms of Britain, it could hide across the channel at various times. That's all well and good. However, the English was incapable of imposing its will on France during the 100 Years War because it lacked the population and potential resources needed to hold down the place - a consequence of its geographic endowment. Even a successful battle like Crecy could be wasted for lack of an ability to push the envelope. Likewise, the English had an unenviable time putting down the Scots, Welsh and Irish peoples whom, on balance, we don't tend to credit with having welcoming geographic conditions.
Even something negative like the mountainous of Spain - a major impediment to the centralisation of power throughout much of its history - has positive features like the good defensive conditions it provided for use against figures like Napoleon. Besides, whose to say that centralisation is unambiguously a Good Thing; I live in a comparatively decentralised state - Australia - and shudder at the thought of increasing centralisation, while others elsewhere do just the opposite. Heck, I might not even agree with my own countrymen let alone a foreigner.
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
The Greenlanders seem to be one people who got the really really short end of the stick.
Verbose
Deity
Not at empire building no. In what way have they been particularily unlycky? The Finns had a devil of a 20th c. The Norwegian struck black gold in 1970's. The Danes are doing well (always have, some of the richest farmland in Europe, and for most of their history controlling the entry to the Baltic, with attendand business opportunities), and the Swedes are so far positively charmed.
From the pow of the ordinary Swede, the country no longer being a player in great power politics has been a positive boon. It took off - population, average income, life expetancy - already in the 18th c. as soon as the Great Nordic War ended. And then things got even better in the 19th c., once the wars ended with the Napoleonic one. Of course, to the thinking of its neighbours at times, the Swedes have occupied the sweet spot among the Nordic countries, with the others acting as a sufficient buffer for the purposes of 19th and 20th c. international politics.
mayor
Heart & Mind
Did you just call me a geographic loser??
j/kbut more serious:
How did you reach the conclusion that the Low Countries (I assume you refer to the whole Benelux with this or just The Netherlands?) should be included in the OP?
Racsoviale
Smoke me a kipper!
I was more thinking about how the day/night cycle, which I believe a lot of studies have shown, affects the mental wellbeing of humans. And that the peoples who live so far to the north have a higher amount of depressions and so on.
Yeah thanks for leaving us to fend for ourselves against the Germans
Winner
Diverse in Unity
All native peoples in the Americas (Isolation, lack of animals suitable for domestication, North-South axis of the continent, etc.), sub-Saharan Africa (too disease ridden and hostile to support large scale civilizations, also relatively isolated), Australia (hostile, arid, isolated).
Now, if we limit that to Eurasia only, then I'd say all areas too close to the steppe belt from where nomads attacked most of the time weren't the best.
Western Europe is actually one of the best places in the world, geographically.
Now, if we limit that to Eurasia only, then I'd say all areas too close to the steppe belt from where nomads attacked most of the time weren't the best.
Western Europe is actually one of the best places in the world, geographically.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
England and Switzerland have the best positions in Europe. Both countries are extremely difficult to occupy because of physical barriers. They also have good trade routes and therefore can get techs more quickly. Flat areas in between large powers are easily bullied and invaded. Palestine is a perfect place for long term conflict.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Of course. If your culture is all about extracting resources and exploiting the environment, then you're going to find that certain areas will benefit you more than others. Native Americans weren't about that, so it didn't matter where they lived (or died).
Winner
Diverse in Unity
No.
England is quite easy to occupy once you get enough troops across the channel. As a country it's relatively flat, there are no major obstacles to advancing troops (rivers, mountain ranges) and it is very small. Wales or Scotland are harder to control due to their geography.
Switzerland was relatively safe because it was relatively worthless. Only recently did it get rich, but still it wasn't really worth the effort.
This is not a computer game
---
---
Another important thing - what used to be a disadvantage in the past can be an advantage today. The value of geographic position changed throughout history.
Take Bohemia. First, the mountain ranges that separate it from surrounding countries were of a great strategic advantage, because it was really hard for an invading medieval army to get through the deep forests in good order. Later, when the borderlands were settled and more roads were built, the defensive value was diminished a little, but Bohemia found itself isolated from the main centres of economic activity in Western Europe (which was centred around maritime trade). This clearly hampered its development between 1500 - 1800.
Today, the landlocked position in the heart of Europe is becoming advantageous again, because transporting goods via land routes (roads, railways) is much easier than it was in the pre-modern era. Czechia's central position also helps to attract all kinds of investments - it's a good place on the crossroads of both North-South and West-East trade routes.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
It's not about the biggest moats but quite the opposite - about the biggest bridges (ocean ones) - through which waves of immigrants flowed into the US increasing its population (= its potential) more dynamic than any other country could dream at that time. US population:
As long as Poland had deep forests (early Medieval) this advantage existed also in case of Poland.
In 1000 AD Poland was forested in some 85-90%. In 1200 AD - 75-78%. In 15th century - 50%. In mid-16th century - 45%. In 18th century - 40%.
In some regions it was more in some less ofc. For example Greater Poland was just in 50% covered by forests & swamps yet in mid-14th century.
Nowadays Poland is forested in less than 30% (ca. 28-30% but level of forestation is slowly increasing so maybe already closer to 30%).
Attachments
Similar threads
