May 8

has there been any country or city that for whatever reason just decided en masse to completely move to a different location, different continent, etc. Meaning they simply did not leave anything behind at least in an administrative/legal sense. Just abandoned buildings (maybe) that are no longer under their authority. The main question is about the people, wealth, administrative bodies government and law, institutions, and perhaps even buildings would be moved. has anything like this happened? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Migration Period saw a lot of tribes and nations shift around in Europe. More recently, and on a smaller scale, villages can shift around as rivers meanders, the local food supply is exhausted and so on. You might also find the article on Human migration useful. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish town of Kiruna is currently in the process of moving 3 kilometres to the east of its current position due to subsidence caused by being built on top of a mining area. As the plans stand, almost nothing will be left behind - most buildings will be demolished and replacements built, although the town hall among others will be dismantled and rebuilt in the new location. Progress is somewhat slow at the moment, although the building should begin (or be finished? I'm afraid I can't quite work out the Swedish sentence where I found this) this year. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people of Taiwan will tell you that their country is a continuation of a country that was once on the Chinese mainland - the Republic of China. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to answer it in the strict sense of moving mostly all buildings etc. there is always the classic "ghost town" but more recently there have been several Enviromental Ghost Towns. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm much more interested in the NON-STRICT sense of NOT moving all the buildings but just moving government laws, etc. Much like how the United States continued to use British common law but "became independent" it's possible to imagine Brtain would have just "moved" there wholesale without continuing as a separate British government as well. Has anything like THAT happened? Also, perhaps the originating government could have given whatever remains over to some other neighboring government or whatever. The point is that most people and the government itself moves. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The

moved en masse to Brazil in 1807, and continued to run the empire from there for about fifteen years. (At the end of this, in 1821, the court returned to Lisbon and Brazil quickly gained independence). The bulk of the people did not move, but the elites and the concept of the state did. I can't think of any other examples that aren't simply a wartime (or post-war) government in exile. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, these "city movings" are what I'm interested in - how about on the scale of countries? In this case I would think this would be possible/of interest if the "country" is primarily legal and "on paper" in the sense of wealth, rather than a lot of developed buildings and so forth. In this case it would be "relatively easy" for the country -meaning its government, laws, people - to move to a new location. Anything like that happen recently? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia the towns of

Jindabyne were relocated when dams were built, flooding their previous locations. I'm sure there would be many similar examples elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Leigh Creek,South Australia was moved so they could dig the coal out from underneath. TrogWoolley (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various low-lying Pacific island nations are currently in advanced stages of planning to do this in the face of rising sea levels. If I get a chance later, I'll find some references. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Anyone do that yet? This is pretty good, I'd be interested... --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles indicate that Tuvalu have decided against it so far, but neighbouring Kiribati may be starting work on such a move at present. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An ancient case of a city moving was

Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Not going back quite so far,

Saint Albans (5th century). Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure in what sense

St Albans Abbey was founded nearby in the 8th century (probably using building materials taken from the remains of the Roman town), sacked by the Danes in the 9th century, and rebuilt by the Normans in the 11th century; and the medieval town of St Albans grew up around the abbey/cathedral. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are numerous examples of a country's government upping and moving to another city, albeit often leaving the rest of the city behind them. In particular Brazil (Rio de Janeiro to Brasília), Belize (Belize City to Belmopan) and Nigeria (Lagos to Abuja). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an extensive List of former national capitals. But, as you say, those are about the government relocating, not the entire city relocating. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP speaks of interest in situations where "the "country" is primarily legal and "on paper"" - with that in mind, how about the various

Free French (although it's debatable whether the latter was a government in exile or a resistance organisation, ultimately they did exercise many of the powers of a national government)). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

yes, yes, this is a very good direction we're going now. In these cases did some significant percentage of the population (meaning not just politicians and their immediate families) move as well? Why not? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was pretty much just politicians and royals, mainly because there was only time to evacuate VIPs as the Germans swept in. For an example of where a country's whole population has moved out (allowing for a slightly vague definition of 'country'), see

Depopulation of Diego Garcia. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Portugal did once. See
  Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil. During the Napoleonic Wars, the government of Portugal picked up and moved to Brazil and established itself as a government-in-exile. When the Napoleonic Wars ended, and European Portugal was returned to the Braganza dynasty, it continued to operate from Rio de Janiero, which was thus the seat of government for the whole country. When the Braganzas moved again back to Lisbon in the 1820s, one son stayed behind and established the Empire of Brazil as an independent country. --Jayron32 12:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Plenty of villages have been moved due to
  strip-mining. There is a list of German villages that fell victim to this at de:Liste abgebaggerter Ortschaften. Many of those were re-erected elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The (current) capital of Norway, was previously located at what is now known as the

Akershus Castle

. It's not that far a distance, maybe 2-3 km. and in 1859, it became a part of the capital.

I suppose a good example of what you are looking could be the Mormon pioneers who due to religious persecution moved from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake City (which they built).

When China built

the Three gorges dam

, the government moved 1.3 million people. This, however, doesn't quite seem to fit what you're looking for, as my understanding is that you want a distinct group of people, in its entirety relocating, and retaining their own identity, culture and institutions. That doesn't seem to have happened here, as (according to the article) the people were just moved to the nearest cities (rather than new cities created for them).

For more examples, you could see the article Population transfer, though a brief skimming of the article indicates that these are usually dictated from the top (e.g. by an empire), and the transferred population doesn't always stay united or create a new separate political entity.V85 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resulting from the

Partition of India and Pakistan, many communities migrated in one direction or the other. Not exactly 'cities or countries' but certainly whole communities moved large distances. And (as far as I know) these were not dictated from the top, unlike mass moves such as the German population of Königsberg. Sussexonian (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of the discussion above reminds me of

Deserted Villages. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of topics listed on the disambiguation page "Exodus" probably fit all of your criteria.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth, Montserrat. RNealK (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poland used to be called a "country on wheels" because

And in the stricter sense, a small farm where I grew up in Kent was literally moved, as a historically important structure in the way of a major building project the entire site was taken apart, labelled brick by brick and rebuilt exactly as it was some miles away. Meanwhile, some countries move around a bit on a slow enough time scale, as in the previous example of Poland, also the westward drift of the franks from Austrasia. Then there was the substantial movement of people during the final break-up of the Ottoman Empire, particularly between Greece and Turkey. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US President and I would think it would be a baseball game, probably the old Washington Senators, anyone would know the date and who and the circumstances? Thanks! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball was in many news stories by the 1880's, but a news archive search for the first US President to attend a game is not an easy thing, since every baseball league also had a "president." Taft attended 3 games in 1909, per [1]. Maybe someone went earlier. Searching for baseball and individual Presidents' names might find an earlier one. Edison (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 30 1909, Taft attended a game between a Chicago team and a Pittsburgh team. He took the mound for two poor pitches earlier at a college game: [2]. Teddy Roosevelt was into sports as well and might have attended a game during his term, before Taft. Edison (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taft saw a Boston team beat a Washington team, April 19 1909:[select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C16FB3E5D12738DDDA90A94DC405B898CF1D3]. I found stories where Roosevelt was in some town at the same time as a baseball game was played, but they did not say he attended the game. Edison (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McKinley attended a college game, Williams College vs "North Adams," June 22 1899: [3]. Edison (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

President Harrison attended a game between the

Washington Senators and the Philadelphia Phillies, June 25 1892: [4]. It was probably at Boundary Field, just outside DC. The Phillies won 9-2.[5]. Edison (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Finally: President Harrison was the first US President to attend a Major League baseball game, June 6 1892. Harrison sat in the press box and sometimes criticized the umpire's calls. [6]. It went into extra innings: [7]. The Cincinnatti Reds beat the Senator 7-4 in 11 innings, at Washington.[8]. Edison (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarity's sake, that's Ben Harrison, not William Henry. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great research and/or knowledge, impressive! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper says "this was the first game the president attended this session". That seems an unlikely thing to say if it was the first game he attended ever. 216.59.240.234 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Major Leagues go, the first to attend a game was Harrison; the

My baseball knowledge in this area is rather thin. Legend has it that Lincoln played baseball, though was certainly not a professional. Professionalism was sporadic until the Cincinnati Red Stockings "came out", and suddenly every well-known team followed, and then leagues started forming. Washington had a couple of fully professional teams starting around 1870. Prior to 1869, it's kind of hard to pin down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting Zenswashbuckler & Baseball Bugs! I stumped the Bugs on Baseball, I know how extremely difficult a challenge that will ever be again ;-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm partly wrong: the

Nationals

article contains this sentence:

In the summer of 1865 the Nationals invited the Philadelphia Athletics and Brooklyn Atlantics, two of the major teams of the era, to Washington, losing to the former 87-12 and to the latter 34-19, before 6,000 spectators, including President Johnson. They "jealously guarded their amateur status by refusing all payments, including travel expenses."

But it also says:

One writer, Thomas Henry, said the U. S. Treasury Department was "the real birthplace of professional base ball in Washington." As a source of patronage for good players, this department was widely exploited after the Civil War. In addition, Washington players benefited from the collection plates passed at games. By this kind of enterprise Washington clubs were able to keep a cadre of good players and to offer excellent accommodations. In 1867 the Nationals' park was located on a field four hundred feet square, surrounded by a ten foot fence, and shaded on the north side by roofed stands. To discourage gamblers, a sign which read "Betting Positively Prohibited" was posted.^[1]

So this (the timing of the encroachment of professionalism) still says Andrew Johnson to me, just not that one particular widely-celebrated day. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all . . . especially Edison & Zenswashbuckler, great research! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article which could benefit from the refs cited here? Or should there be one of those dreaded criss-cross synthesis articles US Presidents and baseball?Edison (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section at Ceremonial first pitch#Presidential first pitches which you may be interested in. --Jayron32 04:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking you may be on to something Edison, I was surprised at the volume, interest and unique research uncovered in this answer, seems like there is potential demand for an encyclopedic entry on this subject, Jayron32's link is helpful but limited in scope to just the first pitches. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's to prevent someone from writing another program that makes yet another currency similar to bitcoins? 67.243.4.94 (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing except the difficulty of persuading other people to use that "currency" -- using it means buying and selling with it or trading other currencies for it. Generally nobody except gamblers will trade "real money" for a currency unless they have some reason to believe that it is secure and stable. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Fiat money and Banknote, which is basically what most major currencies including bit coin rely on for being accepted. If enough people believe in the dollar/yen/euro/bitcoin then it has value, like magic! A great read on the mechanics on this is the book Paper Money by Adam Smith, if my memory serves its almost a blow by blow of the life cycle of a currency. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but in the case of the dollar, yen and euro, I daresay the word for this belief is "rational". When you, me or anyone expects that Mr. Taxman comes calling, you'd better have the dollars, yen or euros he wants, so you can buy your way out of jail or keep him from taking your stuff. And even if he doesn't visit you personally, he visits enough people for your belief to be rational. As for bitcoins?John Z (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been done: see

PPCoin. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

John Z, great point, that too takes a belief in the system as well, there was always L. Ron Hubbard and now Berkshire Hathaway adopting some of that with the whole "bury you in court filings for years" theory. Then just always the good ole Tax Revolts.

Good points 205.175.124.30. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way}]] 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

PPCoin? Is that what you use if you need to "spend a penny"? Dismas|^(talk) 04:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]