Hacker News Reader

Comment by baybal2 | Hacker News Reader

I'd add some background to what fehyjn says below.

The entire world was relatively borderess prior to 20th century, and it was completely outside of humanly possible for the state anywhere to keep tap on every individual.

If you talk about the period from medieval, to early renaissance. It was very natural for every polity to want to get more subjects. Feudal lords couldn't have been more happy to see more people migrating to their domains.

Things started changed with appearance of early nation state model in late renaissance. The more central the role of the nation state got, the further right was the centre of power.

All of the above culminated with introduction of the visa system in Europe, shortly prior to WWII, which was later adopted by nearly all nations around the world.

View on HN

Wasn't travel across great distances commensurately difficult, making such restrictions unnecessary even if they weren't desired?

It was also common for people to randomly get killed, barbarically, when crossing/migrating to another place uninvited.

It must not have been that difficult considering how much impoverished labor immigrated to the United States during the 19th century.

History is full of folks complaining about migrations / stranges and states / groups taking action to prevent / persiculte newcomers, and travel was not easy.

I feel like your comment makes it seem a lot more fluid than it was for a group to simply migrate and enjoy their new country.

Yes, that was there, I and think anybody here is erudite enough to know that.

It was never easy, but for vastly different reasons than today, and, historically, there was a lot more migration than people today tend to think of that time period.

No, he’s right. It was very much in the interest of rulers to rule over as large a population as possible as that meant more tax income.

Think of all the slaves that were brought into the Roman Empire for an example. Or the laws binding serfs to the land in the Middle Ages. Or of the early modern kingdoms of South East Asia, which were essentially slave states, raiding their neighbors for their population so they could at them to their own.

That’s one aspect of it.

The other is that despite travel being difficult, historically people have done a lot of it. This has become clear in recent years as DNA analysis of ancient populations has become possible. The origins of most Western Europeans lie in the steppes of Ukraine (it might not be clear who built Stonehenge but it’s certain it wasn’t an ancestor of a modern Briton). There were Indian traders in Rome (probably to sell silk and spices) and Dutch settlers in South Africa were witness to Bantu immigrants sweeping in from he north.

People have always been mobile, it turns out.

The scale and range of history DNA analysis usually covers is usually massive. Nations would rise and fall within those time frames...

> The entire world was relatively borderess prior to 20th century,

Until fairly recently, historically, if you weren't locally known or vouched for by those either locally trusted or in positions of authority, you'd often be completely ostracized and potentially subject to arbitrary violence that authorities wouldn't concern themselves with. So, effectively, not only wasn't the world borderless but the borders were at the village level.

> If you talk about the period from medieval, to early renaissance. It was very natural for every polity to want to get more subjects

Not really; plenty of them had every sustainably farmable acre under the plow, and any more people was more to support; there wasn't land for more peasants or agricultural surplus for more in the upper classes; conversely, with the agricultural revolutions as you exited this period to later periods, the constraints that make additional population an unsustainable burden are somewhat relieved.

Animals protect their territory. Fierce tribalism has long existed. I find the idea that people could just live anywhere, back in the day, to be hard to believe. In some places? Sure. In "the entire world"? Not so much. Spain was invaded by the Moors, back in the day, because someone opened the gates, from the inside, for them for example.

Your comment still lacks more context why migration wasn't a big deal and why more decentralized power structure didn't need to control migration as much.

1. Human labour was much more critical to survival than today. It was a great thing if one family from another town moved under you cause they'll farm and pay more taxes. Now labour is cheap and isn't critical survival. In fact, there's so much labour that social ills that arise from unemployment is a way bigger problem.

2. Migration happened in much shorter proximity. Therefore, the difference in language, culture, ethnicity and religion were much smaller than the effects of migration today. The host society wasn't concerned about huge changes of their society as much as today where changes of biblical scale are happen in a matter of decades.

3. There was no welfare. If you failed as a migrant, the cost of the failure is paid by yourself. If you fail as a migrant in the host society today, you still have free healthcare, education, citizenship for your children, child care, endless support system to sustain your living in the country. It makes sense the modern state wants control over who enters their state much more.

Prior to the 20th century we also didn't have mass transit and air travel. That pre-Renaissance nations didn't have borders as we have them today isn't really a meaningful distinction because, as you say, the Nation-State didn't really meaningfully exist.

Why do you not just post your reply to his comment as an actual reply to his comment?

Your point is an interesting addition (have you read "The Art of Not Being Governed" by any chance?) but this seems to me to just be for the sake of getting more karma, which I will not support.

> entire world was relatively borderess prior to 20th century, and it was completely outside of humanly possible for the state anywhere to keep tap on every individual

You could also write that it was borderless because they couldn't track every individual.

> The entire world was relatively borderess prior to 20th century,

The Romans spent a lot of effort in trying to keep the various barbarian tribes from migrating freely into the Roman Empire. In fact, for much of the Roman Empire, the bulk of the Roman Army was stationed on the frontiers such as the Danube and Rhine to keep the German tribes out. One of the big turning points was in 406 when the Rhine froze and removed a natural barrier that had kept a lot of these tribes out before hand.

Imperial China also worked hard on keeping the various northern groups from migrating into China, going so far as to build the Great Wall.

It seems that the more developed the civilization, the more effort it expends in defining and guarding it's borders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com