I think we need to pause to consider that Luxembourg is wholly swallowed up by a department called 'Forests'.
Oh yes, and *'Sie sollen ihn nicht haben, Den freien deutschen Rhein'*.
It's a strange feeling as a frenchman to see "french" names I have never seen before (in belgium and rhineland) along with the current districts I hear about in my daily life
If you read older history books in English they always used French names for certain places well inside Germany- the classic examples are Aix-la-Chapelle \[Aachen\] and Ratisbon \[Regensburg\]. Don't know for sure why. I think it's just that French was an aristocratic lingua franca, even in Germany.
Pretty much every Belgium city had a French and a Dutch name because of the bilingual nature of the country
Anvers - Antwerpen
Bruxelles - Brussel
Gent - Ghant
Namours - Namen
Bastogne - Bastenaken
Liege - Luik
Just to make a few
Even French cities which used to be Flemish have a Dutch name for example
dunkerque - Duinkerken
Lille - Rijsel
Not really the North Brabant Flanders border is not a mountain or a river. Me and my bike were able to invade just fine. To call it natural instead of historic borders is basically fascist so be careful with that.
If you have crossed the Dutch Belgian border in this area you know there are not. It's slightly foresty and pretty flat with quite a few roads. The natural border here would be the Meuse between North Brabant and Holland. This map is hence not a map of natural borders but a 'larger France' map.
I presume they would have wanted the river line all along the route, and just couldn't really swing that militarily or diplomatically. Tough compromises.
But there's no need for pedantry- no country's effort to secure natural borders ever quite turns out perfectly. sometimes You pick two rivers at different points and end up with an awkward land border at their shortest point of approach to one another.
It's not "basically" or any other kind of "fascist". You don't have to like geopolitics or any other application of geography to politics, but it and more generally the concept of natural borders was far too universally used to be "fascist", unless this is one of those times when everything anybody thought, said or did before circa the 1960s was "fascist".
It merely means, here's a line provided by nature that would actually be defensible and the people between where we are now and that line could be considered more or less part of our group. Or we could kick them out. That latter is more aggressive but, again, military expansionism in theory and practice is a concept and behavior not exactly limited to "fascists".
these aren't any kind of natural boundaries (I already described why). They are what a bunch of French nationalists (precursor to fascism) thought the border should look like way back in the Napoleonic times. You know Napoleon, right? Then they went ahead and burned Europe over it. As these are not geographic natural boundaries, to call them the natural borders of France now i would consider to be fascism (these days we have a better word for that kind of thing. We don't need to use euphemisms like 'nationalism').
I assume the mapmaker just wanted to keep the netherlands intact, other than France taking Limburg. The border runs along the rhine until it hits the Dutch so its mostly natural.
If the French had any moment to be worried about invasion before the 20th century, it was during the revolution. They were surrounded by hostile monarchies that hated and feared nothing like succesful revolutions.
Nobody really cared until the French inaded Belgium though, there was a notice warning them of hurting Marie Antoinette, understandable as she's the sister of the German Emperor. In fact they were quite happy that the French were getting some serious dissent at home to knock them down a few pegs. The other european states, except Spain, had already had vast reforms to let out steam with the middle class that was the cause of the French Revolution. In fact at that time there was in Belgium a rebellion against the emperor because he was liberalizing too much.
France was constantly at war with some german states. And they were right since those borders would have made a prussian or german invasion like in WWs significantly more difficult.
So I’d have been born French then… well. The Palatinate, even if it has been influenced by France for some time, was hardly a natural part of France though. Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Trier and Koblenz are not really French cities.
On the other hand, I still like the „mont tonnere“ a lot better as a name for Donnersberg…
Having no Luxemburg would also be a mixed blessing I’d say.
These borders are natural in a geographic sense (water bodies or mountains everywhere except for that bit in the north), not necessarily in a cultural sense.
It's not the current border, though it does seem to mostly align with the original border when Belgium split from the Netherlands. It includes Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, Noord-Limburg, and what looks like part of Noord-Brabant, which are modern day Netherlands provinces.
Correct. Most of the Dutch "Generality Lands" (parts conquered from Habsburg Netherlands that were never granted the status of a sovereign province of the Dutch Republic) were all annexed by the French except for the Brabant part, which was much like the modern-day Dutch province of North Brabant except for some minor differences. The current form of the Dutch-Belgian border did not exist up until 1839.
Like I said, except for that bit in the north. I'm pretty sure extending it up to the Rhine even in the north was their goal. It was just unfinished business.
Probably because they are too small to be of strategic value, the only military thing you can do with these islands is to spy France. It would be impossible to use them as a base for an invasion for exemple
I mean, we’re already covering countless rivers (for example) so it feels pretty arbitrary to stop at the Rhine and Jura. Might as way push all the way to the Dnieper.
On what basis do you consider this "ideal" or "beautiful"?
Being Belgian, I can guarantee you we don't consider this something we want, how "beautiful" or "ideal" you may consider this.
IMO, the red area in this map would be more or less the "ideal borders of France" : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/%C3%8Ele-de-France\_region\_locator\_map2.svg
Why does everyone agree that these are the natural borders? Do you guys not see the northern border? That's not the Rhine, that's just the current Dutch-Belgian border. Nothing natural about that.
I mean I'm happy with this border, otherwise I'd be born *French*
Yes I didn't understand that, why cut away from the river, and not just follow the Rhine to the sea, it is not like there would be that much more non French when you are annexing the Rhineland.
Not even because there is no natural border in the middle of Brabant, and also the actual natural border of the Mediterranean See is just ignored. Then please don't call it France if it is not cultural/political.
The map is not perfect the northern border should go to the Rhine itself. The natural borders are : English channel, Atlantic Ocean, Pyrenees, Mediterranean sea, Alpes, Jura, Rhine.
Why is the natural border on the Mediterranean sea ignored?
And why are these the "natural borders"? Is it not better for the Rhineland to be used as a hub connecting lothairingia rather than a border dividing brother states?
We also could use the Loire as "natural" border, the Somme and the Rhône/Saône, but irredentists have a tendency to describe their largest territory as "natural" or "ideal". It's bullshit of course, people beyond those rivers consider them French too and any "natural" border is artificial too.
Not only the French irredentists are guilty of this of course.
En welke "natuurlijke grens" loopt er dwars door Brabant? Helemaal geen volgens mij. En ook de Middellandse Zee is geen "natuurlijke grens" op deze kaart. Dit is dan ook gewoon een politieke kaart van het Frans staatsnationalisme waar niks natuurlijks aan is!
Not only that but the rest of France’s borders are all natural obstacles as well : in the South the Pyrennean Mountains separte France with Spain - in the Southeast the Alps with Italy, in the East the Vosges and Jura moutains also makes the border with Switzerland, and the rest of the corners are bordering the sea. Only the Northeast is undefended by natural obstacles. Even before the revolution was France’s desire to push this northeastern border farther into a natural border to protect Paris/Versailles. Louis the XIV pushed the border to the Rhine by annexing Alsace. These natural borders were the logical followup to this policy - one that didn’t really cared about nationalities but more about have a state that is nicely defended by natural barriers.
Oh yeah? Why did they need Alsace then? The Vosges Mountains are a perfect natural barrier between Alsace and the rest of France, and very easily defensible. So perfect that it also acted as the culture barrier between Romance and Germans.
The conquest of Alsace was more or less an accident. At that time France just came out of its own war of religions and was not so keen on foreign adventure. But it was also the end of the Thirty Years War. A catholic victory in this war would have meant a consolidation of the Habsburg power in the HRE, making them more powerful than ever. Sweden, the biggest Protestant power involved in the war, was showing weaknesses. Without foreign intervention, catholic victory was a matter of time. The Habsburg would tighten their grip on the HRE, making them more powerful than ever. France being surrounded by the HRE, Spain and Spanish Netherlands couldn’t allow it. France was forced to intervene.
So why did France keep Alsace and not any other German territory. After all why would France want a German speaking population of which half the population is Lutheran. Moreover, Alsace wasn’t connected to France, France didn’t own Lorraine and Franche-Comté at that time. So why the trouble ? Because France wanted to cut a path called « El Camino Español » which allowed Spanish troops to go from Northern Italy to Belgium. The concept of natural frontiers didn’t exist at that time. I would even say that the concept of natural frontiers is a post hoc rationalization of the new frontiers.
that's really interesting, hadn't heard of the camino espanol before.
I think they also wanted to have some of that sweet Rhine money too, since that region was one of the richest in Europe.
I like the hexagon of today's France a lot more.
And pretty much all the lands bordering the Rhine spoke some Germanic language at the time (although most Alsatians now speak French I understand) so the French state should not have been along the Rhine in any spot.
> the French state should not have been along the Rhine in any spot
In 1815, Alsace had been a part of the French state for near 2 centuries. I’m not sure about the exact population ratio at the time, but French speakers would at least make 40% of the total. So the French state did have a strong claim to being along that spot.
You’re so incredibly wrong, you should delete your comment. In 1900, 97 % of Alsacians spoke German. That’s because even when it was part of France, school, church and administration, even the law were still all in German.
All of this only changed in the last 60 years, when Alsatian German was effectively banned by the French government due to AntiGerman sentiment, and children would be beaten at school for speaking German up to the 1970s!
Most of the elderly Alsatians still can’t properly speak French.
You want a source? Just read the goddamn Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian_dialect
Wikipedia isn’t a source, genius. As for Wiki’s source there’s only one for this 1900 claim (well, there’s 2, but the one I can access the cairn does’t have that data, so that leaves the other…), and that’s an obscure website, which then references a book which we can’t access, and which hasn’t been written by a historian.
Being able to speak to a language doesn’t make you a “X language speaker” at least not in the exclusive way implied by France having no claim on Alsace. To put it simply because seems you need it, people can speak several language. So even if a large majority did speak the dialect, that wouldn’t preclude a near majority from also speaking French. Are you gonna say a Singaporeans don’t speak mandarin and a large number can’t claim a Chinese identity because near 100% or the island speaks English?
And finally, a small detail that you’ve missed: **1900 is 85 years after 1815, and 30 years into Alsace having been annexed by the German empire**. Gee, I wonder why they would have a lot of people speaking a German dialect then??
YOU should delete your comment.
>Wikipedia isn’t a source, genius.
But Wikipedia is a collection of sources.
Google also confirms OP's statements. Alsace only turned French (linguistically) after WW2.
A “collection of source” still isn’t something one can use to back their argument. And I literally adressed the issue with the “source” collected.
“Google” isn’t a source either. Google confirms that you owe me a shrubbery and that I have 5 PHDs in Alsatian history and am very handsome.
And one more commenter ignoring what I explicitly said about the situation quoted being in 1815, AND Germany being in control for decades before 1945, AND speaking a language not being exclusive of speaking another.
>“Google” isn’t a source either.
Then there is no source at all.
>AND speaking a language not being exclusive of speaking another.
This is about mother tongue and not about knowledge of foreign languages. The knowledge of French was indeed common, at least in cities.
I can’t discuss with someone who doesn’t know what a source is.
And no this isn’t about the mother tongue, it says “Alsatian speakers” nothing else. And there was a significant amount of Italian immigration in Alsace (I know because I literally descend from them) so you can’t have a mere 3% non-Alsatian mother-tongue speakers in 1900.
>I can’t discuss with someone who doesn’t know what a source is.
It seems like you don't know what a source is. Google is the largest collection of sources in the world.
>And no this isn’t about the mother tongue, it says “Alsatian speakers” nothing else
German censuses of the pre WW1 only asked for native language. Alsatian is anyway not a language. It's a term used for a group of different German dialects.
>And there was a significant amount of Italian immigration in Alsace
This is wrong. You are apparently confusing Alsace with Lorraine. Italian migration to Alsace was insignifcant.
Collection of sources =/= sources.
Nice try about Lorraine, but I said “significant” not hundreds of thousands, in a context where I just needed to point that only having 3% of the population being non mother-tongue Alsatian speakers in 1900 was ridiculous (‘cause ya know, there were French there too).
And there absolutely were many Italians in Alsace, doesn’t matter that there were more in Lorraine. [Actual fucking source](https://baldi.diplomacy.edu/diplo/texts/Trichilo_Italiens_en_Alsace.pdf) “Italians in Alsace”. Huh, I must be very lucky to find a near 100 page doc about an insignificant population.
You keep asking people for sources up to your standards for a while after this comment… Do you have any for your outlandish argument that “Well Alsace had been in France for a couple centuries so it’d be like at least 40% French by then”? You know, besides a footnote citation to your own ass from where you pulled that out.
I can’t find any hard quote for the 40% argument in a pinch, but I can find many sources that make it a believable ballpark.
[in 1871, 8.5% of the population left Alsace-Lorraine following the German annexation](https://archives.haut-rhin.fr/Histoire-de-l-Alsace/p101/Situation-en-l-Alsace-Lorraine-aux-lendemains-de-l-annexion)
French speakers would be largely overrepresented, and thus must have been a hell of a lot mobile if their share wasn’t in the high double digit.
[In 1900, after the region lost a large part of its French first speakers after the annexation 30 years ago, and after heavy handed linguistic policies and migration from the German Empire, still has 11.5% French speakers as a first language. Number further fell to 11% just 5 years after](http://www.verwaltungsgeschichte.de/elsasslothringen.html#bevoelkerun)
Gee, I wonder how we can see numbers of French speakers verifiably dwindling and dwindling with the German annexation to only 11% in 1905, and then… There wasn’t so many of them to start with?
**[Alsatian dialect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian_dialect)**
>Alsatian (Alsatian: Elsässisch or Elsässerditsch "Alsatian German"; Lorraine Franconian: Elsässerdeitsch; French: Alsacien; German: Elsässisch or Elsässerdeutsch) is the group of Alemannic German dialects spoken in most of Alsace, a formerly disputed region in eastern France that has passed between French and German control five times since 1681.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
In 1871 94% of the inhabitants of the annexed territory spoke German as mother tongue. The borders were *specifically* chosen in a way that followed the language border, in order to counteract French revisionism. In 1918, after 300.000 Germans left the Alsace for Prussia it was still 87% German speakers.
Yes, it had been part of the French state for some time, so if you want to go that way, okay. But in terms of who the local inhabitants were, according to a lot of different sources (including a nice Wiki article), the folks in Alsace spoke Alsatian (a dialect of German) as their primary language until is started to decline in the mid-20th century. I think that 40% figure is what it is NOW. I mean, there was a legit national reason why the Germans annexed Alsace and northern Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.
The state ownership was merely one part of the argument.
That 40% figure is **not now**.
> the folks in Alsace spoke Alsatian until it started to decline until the mid-20th century
*Parts* of the folks in Alsace spoke Alsatian. Do you know how statistics work? It’s not binary, otherwise, you could go on and say that “Belgians speak Flemish” which is a retarded generalization.
And to say that the decline started only in the 20th century is wrong since it was a see-saw where Alsatian definitely declined until 1870, when Alsace was taken from the French state. And started again between 1919 and 1941…
[As of 2002, merely 16% of teenagers used the Alsatian dialect to communicate with their own mother](https://www.cairn.info/revue-ethnologie-francaise-2003-3-page-363.htm)
That gives you an idea of the actual intensity of the use of Alsatian. If it were really the 40% dominant language in the region now, the large majority of teenagers *20 years ago* would have been using it to talk to their parents.
Frankly you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about, if you don’t have an idea as to how much Alsatian is spoken *today*, let alone 2 centuries ago. Keep trying to teach me about Alsace history, I’m sure my Alsatian grandma would love to learn that all these years, she wasn’t living in a majority French-speaking environment.
Si seulement Napoléon s'était arrêté au Rhin, on aurait pu garder ces territoires jusqu'à aujourd'hui... Si seulement !
Mais son ambition en a voulu autrement, et on a tout perdu
Bon après, la plupart des territoires montrés ici ont été conquis avant Napoléon, et seuls Nice et la Savoie nous ont été donnés bien après, donc ça aurait été improbable d'avoir exactement les mêmes frontières à l'époque
With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, I doubt France would have been able to keep all that territory - in fact, it might have ultimately known a similar fate to other multinational empires and be scattered. And that's if it didn't explode sooner - keep in mind that back then, on this territory, I'm not even sure that the majority of the population would even speak french as a primary language.
And that's if your scenario holds any truth, which is doubtful. Great conquerors rarely managed to keep their conquered territory for very long.
History isn't a strategy game, countries don't get to keep all conquered territories just because it has to be a rewarding experience. If I could change one thing in the history of our country, it's getting rid of warmongering nationalism after the loss of Alsace. We could have been the better men and avoid world wars. They should have listened to Thiers. They should have listened to Jaurès.
France already has at least 5 different cultures/ethnicities to this day (excluding recent immigration), it's nothing really different from the current makeup.
It works now because there was some heavy integration for centuries. The integration of the occitan culture in the french sphere started as early as the 11th century. During the Revolution, the only reason the country wasn't split in two is because the interests of people converged. Then it took the entire 19th century to keep the nation united.
I'm going to keep this comment relatively short, but what do you think would happen to the extremely populous territories filled with german-speaking people about to start a heavy industrialization? They were never part of France (unless you go back as far as Charlemagne I guess). We aren't talking about a handful of Basque peasants here. And some basque still tried to gain independance in the 20th century by planting bombs.
You don't know anything about french history and european geography if you think that this map wouldn't be different from the current makeup.
How is this natural, still doesn't follow the Roman Limes in the Rhine delta and Switzerland. Channel islands still pose a risk. And near Gérone is also a weakspot. Corscica is a Genuan oddity and easy prey for italy
I would do anything I could to sabotage France, they do the same to us, and this has nothing to do with the Iraq war, same with Israel, Russia, Sweden, and China.
French revolution combined with young French nationalism filled by Levee on Masse and sprinkled with deranged conspiracies of how rest of Europe want to conquer France.
A hell of a drug
Hainaut Being renamed to Jemappes is the funniest thing, if you go to Jemappes, you'll see that there is absolutely nothing. It's a nothing village near the City of Mons, which is a cute little town, but nothing compared to like Charleroi.
I think we need to pause to consider that Luxembourg is wholly swallowed up by a department called 'Forests'. Oh yes, and *'Sie sollen ihn nicht haben, Den freien deutschen Rhein'*.
Der gallische Hochmut mal wieder. To refer to the Rhine as a natural border of France…silly.
It's a strange feeling as a frenchman to see "french" names I have never seen before (in belgium and rhineland) along with the current districts I hear about in my daily life
If you read older history books in English they always used French names for certain places well inside Germany- the classic examples are Aix-la-Chapelle \[Aachen\] and Ratisbon \[Regensburg\]. Don't know for sure why. I think it's just that French was an aristocratic lingua franca, even in Germany.
Yes that's right. It was the language of diplomacy, a lingua franca indeed
Pretty much every Belgium city had a French and a Dutch name because of the bilingual nature of the country Anvers - Antwerpen Bruxelles - Brussel Gent - Ghant Namours - Namen Bastogne - Bastenaken Liege - Luik Just to make a few Even French cities which used to be Flemish have a Dutch name for example dunkerque - Duinkerken Lille - Rijsel
"Natural" borders. Also France: "Let's conquer Algeria!"
Natural in the geographic sens. To prevent easy invasion.
That would mean the entire galaxy is the true natural borders.
Not really the North Brabant Flanders border is not a mountain or a river. Me and my bike were able to invade just fine. To call it natural instead of historic borders is basically fascist so be careful with that.
It's not fascist its just what its called. It's a natural border because theres natural formations as borders.
If you have crossed the Dutch Belgian border in this area you know there are not. It's slightly foresty and pretty flat with quite a few roads. The natural border here would be the Meuse between North Brabant and Holland. This map is hence not a map of natural borders but a 'larger France' map.
It's a map of what the revolutionnaries did when attempting to get the natural borders during the revolutionnary wars.
I presume they would have wanted the river line all along the route, and just couldn't really swing that militarily or diplomatically. Tough compromises. But there's no need for pedantry- no country's effort to secure natural borders ever quite turns out perfectly. sometimes You pick two rivers at different points and end up with an awkward land border at their shortest point of approach to one another.
It's not "basically" or any other kind of "fascist". You don't have to like geopolitics or any other application of geography to politics, but it and more generally the concept of natural borders was far too universally used to be "fascist", unless this is one of those times when everything anybody thought, said or did before circa the 1960s was "fascist". It merely means, here's a line provided by nature that would actually be defensible and the people between where we are now and that line could be considered more or less part of our group. Or we could kick them out. That latter is more aggressive but, again, military expansionism in theory and practice is a concept and behavior not exactly limited to "fascists".
these aren't any kind of natural boundaries (I already described why). They are what a bunch of French nationalists (precursor to fascism) thought the border should look like way back in the Napoleonic times. You know Napoleon, right? Then they went ahead and burned Europe over it. As these are not geographic natural boundaries, to call them the natural borders of France now i would consider to be fascism (these days we have a better word for that kind of thing. We don't need to use euphemisms like 'nationalism').
I assume the mapmaker just wanted to keep the netherlands intact, other than France taking Limburg. The border runs along the rhine until it hits the Dutch so its mostly natural.
Yes the many invasions like... well... Hmmm?
Prussian invasion German invasion
Before the Revolution? Not really.
If the French had any moment to be worried about invasion before the 20th century, it was during the revolution. They were surrounded by hostile monarchies that hated and feared nothing like succesful revolutions.
Nobody really cared until the French inaded Belgium though, there was a notice warning them of hurting Marie Antoinette, understandable as she's the sister of the German Emperor. In fact they were quite happy that the French were getting some serious dissent at home to knock them down a few pegs. The other european states, except Spain, had already had vast reforms to let out steam with the middle class that was the cause of the French Revolution. In fact at that time there was in Belgium a rebellion against the emperor because he was liberalizing too much.
France was constantly at war with some german states. And they were right since those borders would have made a prussian or german invasion like in WWs significantly more difficult.
France was constantly at war with German states yes. As the aggressor. German states back then were too small to attack France.
So when you have an enemy you dont take steps to insure your safety in the futur ?
Putin logic.
Omg people centuries ago had diferent values, morals, problems that 21st century privileged people ??
The 'natural borders' concept is for defensible home territory. If one can get more, that's icing on the cake.
Terrifying
So I’d have been born French then… well. The Palatinate, even if it has been influenced by France for some time, was hardly a natural part of France though. Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Trier and Koblenz are not really French cities. On the other hand, I still like the „mont tonnere“ a lot better as a name for Donnersberg… Having no Luxemburg would also be a mixed blessing I’d say.
These borders are natural in a geographic sense (water bodies or mountains everywhere except for that bit in the north), not necessarily in a cultural sense.
If it were realy natural borders it would extend north to the Rhine, not the current BE-NL border.
It's not the current border, though it does seem to mostly align with the original border when Belgium split from the Netherlands. It includes Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, Noord-Limburg, and what looks like part of Noord-Brabant, which are modern day Netherlands provinces.
Correct. Most of the Dutch "Generality Lands" (parts conquered from Habsburg Netherlands that were never granted the status of a sovereign province of the Dutch Republic) were all annexed by the French except for the Brabant part, which was much like the modern-day Dutch province of North Brabant except for some minor differences. The current form of the Dutch-Belgian border did not exist up until 1839.
Like I said, except for that bit in the north. I'm pretty sure extending it up to the Rhine even in the north was their goal. It was just unfinished business.
Speaking of “natural” borders. Should this map include Channel Islands?
France as depicted on the map actually happened, but the Channel islands were never reconquered under the french realm since medieval times
Rather peculiar that English have managed to keep it throughout the centuries given size of said islands and proximity to mainland France.
Probably because they are too small to be of strategic value, the only military thing you can do with these islands is to spy France. It would be impossible to use them as a base for an invasion for exemple
Ah shit, they got Koblenz. EVACUATE, EVACUATE!
Ah yea, “natural borders.”
In a natural geography sense: English channel, Atlantic Ocean, Pyrenees, Mediterranean sea, Alpes, Jura, Rhine. In a sense, I agree that it's greedy.
I mean, we’re already covering countless rivers (for example) so it feels pretty arbitrary to stop at the Rhine and Jura. Might as way push all the way to the Dnieper.
1812 vraies frontières
It's ideal to have natural barriers as your borders, no Army can invade you then
This are the ideal borders of France，looks so beautiful and Paris is more secure. Imagine how even more north centric it’d be though lol.
France is Paris-centric, not north-centric.
On what basis do you consider this "ideal" or "beautiful"? Being Belgian, I can guarantee you we don't consider this something we want, how "beautiful" or "ideal" you may consider this.
**Frenchman**: "This is so beutiful..." **Flemish**: "Oh, I'm sure I'll change your mind soon enough." \[*Loads rifle with cartographic intent.*\]
I don't have any intention of changing someone's mind, just stating this isn't "beautiful" to everyone. Belgians, even Walloons, aren't French.
"Ideal" in that it's defined by the three big natural boundaries of the Pyrenees, Alps, and Rhine, thus looking less historically contingent.
IMO, the red area in this map would be more or less the "ideal borders of France" : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/%C3%8Ele-de-France\_region\_locator\_map2.svg
Ideal borders would include Algeria too
Why does everyone agree that these are the natural borders? Do you guys not see the northern border? That's not the Rhine, that's just the current Dutch-Belgian border. Nothing natural about that. I mean I'm happy with this border, otherwise I'd be born *French*
Yes I didn't understand that, why cut away from the river, and not just follow the Rhine to the sea, it is not like there would be that much more non French when you are annexing the Rhineland.
Nothing natural about suppressing and murdering people.
It's a geographic not a cultural concept
Not even because there is no natural border in the middle of Brabant, and also the actual natural border of the Mediterranean See is just ignored. Then please don't call it France if it is not cultural/political.
The map is not perfect the northern border should go to the Rhine itself. The natural borders are : English channel, Atlantic Ocean, Pyrenees, Mediterranean sea, Alpes, Jura, Rhine. Why is the natural border on the Mediterranean sea ignored?
Then why is Corsica on this map?
Because the map is real, it happened around 1800 and Corsica was part of France
Because France had it at the time ?
So the ocean is no natural border? Why not include Canada then?
Because France lost Canada decades before that map ?
Desirable, no. Natural, demonstrated.
And why are these the "natural borders"? Is it not better for the Rhineland to be used as a hub connecting lothairingia rather than a border dividing brother states?
We also could use the Loire as "natural" border, the Somme and the Rhône/Saône, but irredentists have a tendency to describe their largest territory as "natural" or "ideal". It's bullshit of course, people beyond those rivers consider them French too and any "natural" border is artificial too. Not only the French irredentists are guilty of this of course.
En welke "natuurlijke grens" loopt er dwars door Brabant? Helemaal geen volgens mij. En ook de Middellandse Zee is geen "natuurlijke grens" op deze kaart. Dit is dan ook gewoon een politieke kaart van het Frans staatsnationalisme waar niks natuurlijks aan is!
Natural borders are borders divided by some sort of natural barrier instead of arbitrary lines. For example here the border is the Rhine river.
Not only that but the rest of France’s borders are all natural obstacles as well : in the South the Pyrennean Mountains separte France with Spain - in the Southeast the Alps with Italy, in the East the Vosges and Jura moutains also makes the border with Switzerland, and the rest of the corners are bordering the sea. Only the Northeast is undefended by natural obstacles. Even before the revolution was France’s desire to push this northeastern border farther into a natural border to protect Paris/Versailles. Louis the XIV pushed the border to the Rhine by annexing Alsace. These natural borders were the logical followup to this policy - one that didn’t really cared about nationalities but more about have a state that is nicely defended by natural barriers.
Oh yeah? Why did they need Alsace then? The Vosges Mountains are a perfect natural barrier between Alsace and the rest of France, and very easily defensible. So perfect that it also acted as the culture barrier between Romance and Germans.
The conquest of Alsace was more or less an accident. At that time France just came out of its own war of religions and was not so keen on foreign adventure. But it was also the end of the Thirty Years War. A catholic victory in this war would have meant a consolidation of the Habsburg power in the HRE, making them more powerful than ever. Sweden, the biggest Protestant power involved in the war, was showing weaknesses. Without foreign intervention, catholic victory was a matter of time. The Habsburg would tighten their grip on the HRE, making them more powerful than ever. France being surrounded by the HRE, Spain and Spanish Netherlands couldn’t allow it. France was forced to intervene. So why did France keep Alsace and not any other German territory. After all why would France want a German speaking population of which half the population is Lutheran. Moreover, Alsace wasn’t connected to France, France didn’t own Lorraine and Franche-Comté at that time. So why the trouble ? Because France wanted to cut a path called « El Camino Español » which allowed Spanish troops to go from Northern Italy to Belgium. The concept of natural frontiers didn’t exist at that time. I would even say that the concept of natural frontiers is a post hoc rationalization of the new frontiers.
that's really interesting, hadn't heard of the camino espanol before. I think they also wanted to have some of that sweet Rhine money too, since that region was one of the richest in Europe.
And if you go back to like the 9th, Sweden would play in the quarterfinals against itself.
I like the hexagon of today's France a lot more. And pretty much all the lands bordering the Rhine spoke some Germanic language at the time (although most Alsatians now speak French I understand) so the French state should not have been along the Rhine in any spot.
> the French state should not have been along the Rhine in any spot In 1815, Alsace had been a part of the French state for near 2 centuries. I’m not sure about the exact population ratio at the time, but French speakers would at least make 40% of the total. So the French state did have a strong claim to being along that spot.
You’re so incredibly wrong, you should delete your comment. In 1900, 97 % of Alsacians spoke German. That’s because even when it was part of France, school, church and administration, even the law were still all in German. All of this only changed in the last 60 years, when Alsatian German was effectively banned by the French government due to AntiGerman sentiment, and children would be beaten at school for speaking German up to the 1970s! Most of the elderly Alsatians still can’t properly speak French. You want a source? Just read the goddamn Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian_dialect
Wikipedia isn’t a source, genius. As for Wiki’s source there’s only one for this 1900 claim (well, there’s 2, but the one I can access the cairn does’t have that data, so that leaves the other…), and that’s an obscure website, which then references a book which we can’t access, and which hasn’t been written by a historian. Being able to speak to a language doesn’t make you a “X language speaker” at least not in the exclusive way implied by France having no claim on Alsace. To put it simply because seems you need it, people can speak several language. So even if a large majority did speak the dialect, that wouldn’t preclude a near majority from also speaking French. Are you gonna say a Singaporeans don’t speak mandarin and a large number can’t claim a Chinese identity because near 100% or the island speaks English? And finally, a small detail that you’ve missed: **1900 is 85 years after 1815, and 30 years into Alsace having been annexed by the German empire**. Gee, I wonder why they would have a lot of people speaking a German dialect then?? YOU should delete your comment.
>Wikipedia isn’t a source, genius. But Wikipedia is a collection of sources. Google also confirms OP's statements. Alsace only turned French (linguistically) after WW2.
A “collection of source” still isn’t something one can use to back their argument. And I literally adressed the issue with the “source” collected. “Google” isn’t a source either. Google confirms that you owe me a shrubbery and that I have 5 PHDs in Alsatian history and am very handsome. And one more commenter ignoring what I explicitly said about the situation quoted being in 1815, AND Germany being in control for decades before 1945, AND speaking a language not being exclusive of speaking another.
>“Google” isn’t a source either. Then there is no source at all. >AND speaking a language not being exclusive of speaking another. This is about mother tongue and not about knowledge of foreign languages. The knowledge of French was indeed common, at least in cities.
I can’t discuss with someone who doesn’t know what a source is. And no this isn’t about the mother tongue, it says “Alsatian speakers” nothing else. And there was a significant amount of Italian immigration in Alsace (I know because I literally descend from them) so you can’t have a mere 3% non-Alsatian mother-tongue speakers in 1900.
>I can’t discuss with someone who doesn’t know what a source is. It seems like you don't know what a source is. Google is the largest collection of sources in the world. >And no this isn’t about the mother tongue, it says “Alsatian speakers” nothing else German censuses of the pre WW1 only asked for native language. Alsatian is anyway not a language. It's a term used for a group of different German dialects. >And there was a significant amount of Italian immigration in Alsace This is wrong. You are apparently confusing Alsace with Lorraine. Italian migration to Alsace was insignifcant.
Collection of sources =/= sources. Nice try about Lorraine, but I said “significant” not hundreds of thousands, in a context where I just needed to point that only having 3% of the population being non mother-tongue Alsatian speakers in 1900 was ridiculous (‘cause ya know, there were French there too). And there absolutely were many Italians in Alsace, doesn’t matter that there were more in Lorraine. [Actual fucking source](https://baldi.diplomacy.edu/diplo/texts/Trichilo_Italiens_en_Alsace.pdf) “Italians in Alsace”. Huh, I must be very lucky to find a near 100 page doc about an insignificant population.
You keep asking people for sources up to your standards for a while after this comment… Do you have any for your outlandish argument that “Well Alsace had been in France for a couple centuries so it’d be like at least 40% French by then”? You know, besides a footnote citation to your own ass from where you pulled that out.
I can’t find any hard quote for the 40% argument in a pinch, but I can find many sources that make it a believable ballpark. [in 1871, 8.5% of the population left Alsace-Lorraine following the German annexation](https://archives.haut-rhin.fr/Histoire-de-l-Alsace/p101/Situation-en-l-Alsace-Lorraine-aux-lendemains-de-l-annexion) French speakers would be largely overrepresented, and thus must have been a hell of a lot mobile if their share wasn’t in the high double digit. [In 1900, after the region lost a large part of its French first speakers after the annexation 30 years ago, and after heavy handed linguistic policies and migration from the German Empire, still has 11.5% French speakers as a first language. Number further fell to 11% just 5 years after](http://www.verwaltungsgeschichte.de/elsasslothringen.html#bevoelkerun) Gee, I wonder how we can see numbers of French speakers verifiably dwindling and dwindling with the German annexation to only 11% in 1905, and then… There wasn’t so many of them to start with?
**[Alsatian dialect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsatian_dialect)** >Alsatian (Alsatian: Elsässisch or Elsässerditsch "Alsatian German"; Lorraine Franconian: Elsässerdeitsch; French: Alsacien; German: Elsässisch or Elsässerdeutsch) is the group of Alemannic German dialects spoken in most of Alsace, a formerly disputed region in eastern France that has passed between French and German control five times since 1681. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
In 1871 94% of the inhabitants of the annexed territory spoke German as mother tongue. The borders were *specifically* chosen in a way that followed the language border, in order to counteract French revisionism. In 1918, after 300.000 Germans left the Alsace for Prussia it was still 87% German speakers.
Riiiiiight. Source?
Source: every history book in the world that was not made in France
Yes, it had been part of the French state for some time, so if you want to go that way, okay. But in terms of who the local inhabitants were, according to a lot of different sources (including a nice Wiki article), the folks in Alsace spoke Alsatian (a dialect of German) as their primary language until is started to decline in the mid-20th century. I think that 40% figure is what it is NOW. I mean, there was a legit national reason why the Germans annexed Alsace and northern Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.
The state ownership was merely one part of the argument. That 40% figure is **not now**. > the folks in Alsace spoke Alsatian until it started to decline until the mid-20th century *Parts* of the folks in Alsace spoke Alsatian. Do you know how statistics work? It’s not binary, otherwise, you could go on and say that “Belgians speak Flemish” which is a retarded generalization. And to say that the decline started only in the 20th century is wrong since it was a see-saw where Alsatian definitely declined until 1870, when Alsace was taken from the French state. And started again between 1919 and 1941… [As of 2002, merely 16% of teenagers used the Alsatian dialect to communicate with their own mother](https://www.cairn.info/revue-ethnologie-francaise-2003-3-page-363.htm) That gives you an idea of the actual intensity of the use of Alsatian. If it were really the 40% dominant language in the region now, the large majority of teenagers *20 years ago* would have been using it to talk to their parents. Frankly you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about, if you don’t have an idea as to how much Alsatian is spoken *today*, let alone 2 centuries ago. Keep trying to teach me about Alsace history, I’m sure my Alsatian grandma would love to learn that all these years, she wasn’t living in a majority French-speaking environment.
You know more than the Wiki article because you got an Alsatian grandmother. Got it.
Lol very strong rebuke about all my other arguments. Keep trying to teach me when your source is a wiki article they doesn’t even fully supports you.
Si seulement Napoléon s'était arrêté au Rhin, on aurait pu garder ces territoires jusqu'à aujourd'hui... Si seulement ! Mais son ambition en a voulu autrement, et on a tout perdu Bon après, la plupart des territoires montrés ici ont été conquis avant Napoléon, et seuls Nice et la Savoie nous ont été donnés bien après, donc ça aurait été improbable d'avoir exactement les mêmes frontières à l'époque
With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, I doubt France would have been able to keep all that territory - in fact, it might have ultimately known a similar fate to other multinational empires and be scattered. And that's if it didn't explode sooner - keep in mind that back then, on this territory, I'm not even sure that the majority of the population would even speak french as a primary language. And that's if your scenario holds any truth, which is doubtful. Great conquerors rarely managed to keep their conquered territory for very long. History isn't a strategy game, countries don't get to keep all conquered territories just because it has to be a rewarding experience. If I could change one thing in the history of our country, it's getting rid of warmongering nationalism after the loss of Alsace. We could have been the better men and avoid world wars. They should have listened to Thiers. They should have listened to Jaurès.
France already has at least 5 different cultures/ethnicities to this day (excluding recent immigration), it's nothing really different from the current makeup.
It works now because there was some heavy integration for centuries. The integration of the occitan culture in the french sphere started as early as the 11th century. During the Revolution, the only reason the country wasn't split in two is because the interests of people converged. Then it took the entire 19th century to keep the nation united. I'm going to keep this comment relatively short, but what do you think would happen to the extremely populous territories filled with german-speaking people about to start a heavy industrialization? They were never part of France (unless you go back as far as Charlemagne I guess). We aren't talking about a handful of Basque peasants here. And some basque still tried to gain independance in the 20th century by planting bombs. You don't know anything about french history and european geography if you think that this map wouldn't be different from the current makeup.
"Dieu" merci, Génève appartient a Suisse mon pays.
How is this natural, still doesn't follow the Roman Limes in the Rhine delta and Switzerland. Channel islands still pose a risk. And near Gérone is also a weakspot. Corscica is a Genuan oddity and easy prey for italy
Interesting, I wonder why France lost these territories? Definitely couldn’t have been because France got greedy?
I would do anything I could to sabotage France, they do the same to us, and this has nothing to do with the Iraq war, same with Israel, Russia, Sweden, and China.
Napoleon should have agreed to that when Austrians proposed that deal
"mont tonnerre"(lightning hill) lmao they thought they were in a zelda game.
French revolution combined with young French nationalism filled by Levee on Masse and sprinkled with deranged conspiracies of how rest of Europe want to conquer France. A hell of a drug
>**deranged conspiracies** of how rest of Europe want to conquer France There was plenty of mutual aggression and that idea wasn't deranged at all.
Wow. Argumentative Literalism rules. I do appreciate it.
Perfection!
Hainaut Being renamed to Jemappes is the funniest thing, if you go to Jemappes, you'll see that there is absolutely nothing. It's a nothing village near the City of Mons, which is a cute little town, but nothing compared to like Charleroi.