Natural borders in Europe?

In general: Many borders bear some geographical reference.
But Europe is not a continent of extreme geographical effects,
and therefore I don't see a single line predestinated as part of a border.
For instance, it is not necessary to have a country on the British isles
to be restricted from the main across the channel.

As an aside, the general effect as to European borders was that the borders
in Western Europe are much more stable than those in the East.
The turning point is Germany, with its Western border shifting (or twitching)
only slowly and over moderate distances, and its Eastern border flying to and
frow extensibly over the map.
But amid all this Eastern quivering, there is (at least) one line which was almost unchanged
for close to a millenium: The line which today marks the German-Czech border,
and before had job titles like "Bavarian-Bohemian" or "Saxon-Bohemian".
And this border runs along mountain tops!
This does not suffice as a reason to keep the border in place, but it certainly helped ...


More thoughts:


The Pyrennes have often funcioned as a border.

The Alps did not as frequently, because they are rather an area with signifacnt population inside than a line.

The Rhine would make a good border (the Romans would agree), but this remained a French dream for most of the time and most of the extent of the Rhine. Here, as often,
geography couldn't win over the actual power situation.
 
It seems to me that we have a very different view of what is a weak Germany and strong Russia.

The German 8th Army had 166,000 men and was all Germany had in the East at the time. The Russian 1st Army had 210,000 men and the 2nd Army had 206,000. So in 1914 in the east Germany was weak and Russia was strong, but Germany fortified the gaps between lakes and was able to use trains in the rear areas.
 
The German 8th Army had 166,000 men and was all Germany had in the East at the time. The Russian 1st Army had 210,000 men and the 2nd Army had 206,000. So in 1914 in the east Germany was weak and Russia was strong, but Germany fortified the gaps between lakes and was able to use trains in the rear areas.

Numbers are not necessarily a good way of defining an army's strength. The German army was much better equipped than the Russian armies were, and the Germans were able to intercept Russian transmissions, which were broadcast completely uncoded.
 
The German 8th Army had 166,000 men and was all Germany had in the East at the time. The Russian 1st Army had 210,000 men and the 2nd Army had 206,000. So in 1914 in the east Germany was weak and Russia was strong, but Germany fortified the gaps between lakes and was able to use trains in the rear areas.

Single battle is how you define strength?

And what the poster above me said.
 
In a discussion about natural borders/borderlands yes, a single battle can define strength and weakness. On an open plain 166,000 Germans could not defeat 416,000 Russians despite being probably twice as good unit for unit. But the lakes and hills of the Tannenburg area meant that the Russians ability to maneuvre was limited and the Germans could deploy by foot and train behind the difficult borderland terrain to do battle where the odds were only 2:1 against and defeat them in detail.
 
In a discussion about natural borders/borderlands yes, a single battle can define strength and weakness. On an open plain 166,000 Germans could not defeat 416,000 Russians despite being probably twice as good unit for unit. But the lakes and hills of the Tannenburg area meant that the Russians ability to maneuvre was limited and the Germans could deploy by foot and train behind the difficult borderland terrain to do battle where the odds were only 2:1 against and defeat them in detail.

I disagree. If Germany was weak then maybe it could win one battle. But the next Russian offensive where the Russian generals do not hate each other, army is properly led and equipped and the battle plan is not known.

Yes difficult terrain can win you several battles, but it will not win you multiple offesnives/wars.
 
I didn't say Germany was weak, Germany was the most powerful country in Europe in 1914. But this is a discussion about natural borders, and my point is that the defensive strength of the Tannenburg region allowed Germany to have only 1 of its 8 armies there and not just hold the line but win a smashing victory against 2 much larger forces.
 
Which in my opinion was just an excuse for conquering their neighbours. If France would have reached the rhine I have no doubt suddenly the IJssel, the Ems, the Elbe or the pacific Ocean would have become the French natural border. As I said Napoeon got the Rhine Border in 1809 and a couple of months later he annexed the rest of the Netherlands and a big part of Germany.

Pfft ! What makes you think we would have wanted to keep the Netherlands ? We have all the cheese we need already !

In your Francophobic rant, there's something true, though. The "natural borders" concept has been introduced in the French political agenda by the Revolution, partly to justify the need to establish a buffer zone between France proper and Austria and Prussia. It has been expanded by Napoleon to a Pyrenees-Po-Alps-Rhine line (and expanded again thanks to the Continental Blockade), but, except perhaps under Napoleon III, it has never been a serious project after 1815. Far more rooted in the French psyche is the concept of "Pré Carré" formed by Vauban : forming a defensible frontier from the Swiss border and Alsace (on the Rhine, yeah) to Lille and Dunkirk and along the Pyrenees.

As for Britain, I'm afraid those people from London didn't always thought that the Channel was their natural border... ;)
 
I didn't say Germany was weak, Germany was the most powerful country in Europe in 1914. But this is a discussion about natural borders, and my point is that the defensive strength of the Tannenburg region allowed Germany to have only 1 of its 8 armies there and not just hold the line but win a smashing victory against 2 much larger forces.

And I quoted whom? Further, how does this disqualify what I said at first? Why did you start arguing with me?
 
Sorry for not clarifying. While Germany was strong overall in 1914 in the initial battles in East Prussia Germany was considerably weaker than the Russians. But the Russians were unable to mass their huge forces (even if the commanders had wanted to) because of the obstaces of the lakes, hills and forests in the area. These borderland obstacles allowed the Germans to redeploy southwest unmolested and win at Tannenburg.
 
Pfft ! What makes you think we would have wanted to keep the Netherlands ? We have all the cheese we need already !

In your Francophobic rant, there's something true, though.

Ehm, I wasn't being Francophobic.At least that was not my intention. THe exact same thing could be said about all other powers in the 16th-19th century powers. All wanted to expand as far as possible. At least France had the decency to give some kind of flimsy excuse.
 
Top