Previously underpopulated territories that acquired huge populations as a result of mass migration

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,093
SoCal
#1
Which underpopulated territories were there that acquired huge populations as a result of migration? So far, I could think of:

1. The territories that currently make up the US and Canada. They were largely unpopulated in 1500 but later became extremely populated. I'm less sure about territories further south of the Americas because those might have had more people--at least before European diseases wiped out a lot of the Native Americans who lived there.

2. The territories that currently make up "Novorossiya", Crimea, southern Russia, and Asiatic Russia (including the Russian Far East, such as Outer Manchuria). AFAIK, all of those territories were largely unpopulated several centuries ago and yet became much more heavily populated later on as a result of Russian and Ukrainian migration into these territories.

3. Australia. It was largely unpopulated in the 1700s but subsequently became extremely populated as a result of European and later other immigration as well.

4. Inner Manchuria: Was largely unpopulated in 1850 but acquired over 100 million people as a result of mass Han Chinese migration into this territory over the last 170 years.

5. Hokkaido: Was previously largely unpopulated and subsequently acquired a Japanese population of several million people as a result of mass Japanese migration to this island.

I don't really think that Palestine would actually count for this since even without large-scale Zionist settlement there, the Palestinian population would have still exploded in the 20th and 21st centuries. In fact, there are actually currently more Palestinians (including Israeli Arabs) than Israeli Jews out there--especially if one also counts diaspora Palestinians and diaspora Israeli Jews.

Also, AFAIK, the Ostsiedlung (German eastwards migration) wouldn't actually count for this either since the territories that Germans migrated to en masse weren't actually underpopulated to my knowledge before Germans actually moved there in large numbers.

Anyway, which additional examples of this have there been?
 
Likes: Slavon
Jun 2017
348
maine
#7
They are still largely underpopulated even today, no?
"Underpopulated" is a relative term--probably they think that the number of people is just about right:). Iceland's population has grown from an average of 50k (1703, when counting began) to on to 500k today (World Population Review). Greenland's population is on to 57k (again, World Population Review)--which is an increase from the time that the European population had been wiped out and the native population was unknown. The Faroes have a population approaching 51k (faroeislands.fo) which is up from 0 because the Norse and Gaels were the first, as far as I know. So, compared to NYC, the population is low--but these places have certainly grown from their earlier, pre-migration days.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,093
SoCal
#8
"Underpopulated" is a relative term--probably they think that the number of people is just about right:). Iceland's population has grown from an average of 50k (1703, when counting began) to on to 500k today (World Population Review). Greenland's population is on to 57k (again, World Population Review)--which is an increase from the time that the European population had been wiped out and the native population was unknown. The Faroes have a population approaching 51k (faroeislands.fo) which is up from 0 because the Norse and Gaels were the first, as far as I know. So, compared to NYC, the population is low--but these places have certainly grown from their earlier, pre-migration days.
Fair enough, I suppose.