A tribe or a nation (say tribe A) leaves their land for whatever reason (poor soil, threatening neighbours). Another tribe or nation (possibly with the members of the original tribe who were left behind) develops a settlement on this land (say tribe B). Possibly this new tribe overcomes the problem that originally pushed tribe A out of the land. The original tribe comes back to reclaim their land. What is the most recent example of this? Reconquista makes sense however I'm looking for more of a peaceful initial "exodus" rather than invasion. Also with Reconquista it's hard to say that the tribe/nation that reclaimed the land was the same that left it (as far as I understand).

Updated: The correct answer would indeed be "yes". Rephrased the question so it's not a laundry list one.

  • 3
    The reconquista in Spain/Portugal? – Tomas By Dec 9 '18 at 18:38
  • 1
    Eastern European "forced resettlement" of Poles, Germans, Hungarians, Ukrainians by the Soviets after WW2. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 9 '18 at 18:51
  • 2
    Israel. And I have to add some more characters, you could probably consider the Crusades as in part an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to do that. – jamesqf Dec 10 '18 at 2:22
  • The rephrased version reads as if you might want to add "left voluntarily" to the title? (But that "peaceful" again seems to clash with "whatever reason" and "threatening neighbours"?) As a technically frowned uppon answer-comment already brings up "Israel", it looks like you need a time-frame and a definition of "tribe" to get meaningful and acceptable results. – LаngLаngС Dec 10 '18 at 9:36
  • @LangLangC: Re "technically frowned upon", they don't like one-word answers all that much, either :-) But that one word is a complete answer: anything else added would be pointless verbiage. – jamesqf Dec 10 '18 at 17:29

People usually do not leave suitable land for another, unless they are forced to, so we should be looking at places that were barely suitable and became worse to begin with.

The closest example could probably be Greenland: in the Middle Ages the Nordmen did stablish some colonies there but those could not be maintained due to climate change and had to be abandoned.

But, at a later age, Norway and Denmark did send new expeditions and, nowadays, Groenland is part of Denmark.

As a side note, I agree with your doubts about Reconquista; while the Christian Kingdoms did claim to be the political heirs of the Visigothic Kingdom, most of the people just stayed at their regions and just continued living there, either as Christians (or Jews) under Muslim rule or converting to Islam.

| improve this answer | |
  • @TomasBy but it did not have any actual control of the island during a long time. – SJuan76 Dec 9 '18 at 23:47
  • Seems like this is the closest to what I was looking for. Wikipedia doesn’t go into details of Inuit people’s reaction 17th century Denmark expeditions and this whole sovereignty assertion. But I’ll try to get more information on that. – Alexey Golev Dec 10 '18 at 7:24
  • @TomasBy I meant that the Nordmen/Denmark were the people/tribe/nation that reclaimed a land they had previously inhabitated, after leaving it not because of war but because it became uninhabitable. And from what I read the native population at the time of Norse settlement was later replaced by the inuits: The Thule people are the ancestors of the current Greenlandic population. No genes from the Paleo-Eskimos have been found in the present population of Greenland. The Thule Culture migrated eastward from what is now known as Alaska around 1000, reaching Greenland around 1300. – SJuan76 Dec 10 '18 at 9:31
  • The current settlements were built by the Danes, not the Thule/Eskimo/Inuit, and it is still too cold for farming. – Tomas By Dec 10 '18 at 10:02
  • The Norse didn't leave their settlements in Greenland, they died. And it wasn't "climate change" that doomed them, it was resource exhaustion, and failure to adopt a lifestyle which, like the Inuit, matched the available resources. – jamesqf Dec 10 '18 at 17:27

Simplifying greatly, Imperial Russia conquered the Crimean Khanate in the 1780s and settled the peninsula. In 1954 Crimea became part of the Ukranian SSR; it stayed Ukranian after the breakup of the Soviet Union. In 2014, Russia took it back.

(This answer deliberately skips over lots of details about Tatar interests, Cossack incursions, national languages, Soviet politics, little green men, etc. -- see the Wikipedia article on the History of Crimea.)

| improve this answer | |
  • So which people LEFT the territory in 1780? Or in 1954? Or in 2014? – Alex Dec 10 '18 at 4:32
  • 1
    The Russians (and the Crimeans, except for those being sent to the gulag under Stalin) never left the Crimean peninsula. Which is the reason for the current volatile political situation there as the natives consider the Russians a foreign occupation force and accuse them of rigging the referendum that led to the Crimea declaring itself part of Russia rather than Ukraine. – jwenting Dec 10 '18 at 4:55
  • And why Crimea history always starts in 18th century? And not in 2000 BC for example? – seven-phases-max Dec 10 '18 at 15:26

There are plenty of examples, beginning with the Bible (Babylonian Captivity. The Jews were resettled by force and 60 years later they were permitted to return and settled in the same place).

More recent example is Crimean Tatars: in 1944 the whole population was deported by force from Crimea to the East of Soviet Union. A generation later they were permitted to return and returned.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.