Impressive work. This doesn't come close to applying any sort of consistent standard, of course (I could quibble the hell out of your European map) but still a remarkable effort. And your point is correct, of course, though I suspect we take very different conclusions from it.
Feel free to quibble. I'll probably find a more high-resolution map and do a third version of this, because by the time I got to the Balkans I was so squished in I didn't have the patience for it. Also, some of the boundaries are nebulously defined at best.
OK, let's start with Italy. Most of the Italian peninsula was never under Etruscan control (only modern-day Tuscany and Emilia were). Further North you had Gauls, further South you had a smattering of Italic tribes including, most famously, the Samnites, and at the very edges of Calabria and Apulia you had Greek city-states. And of course, there's the city of Rome itself, which I guess you could argue was "stolen" from the Etruscans in that Etruscan kings ruled Rome before being overthrown, but that feels like a stretch. The weird thing here is that when I saw the "21" area I was convinced it was going to refer to the Kingdom of Sardinia "stealing" the rest of the peninsula from Austria, the Pope and the Bourbons. It would fit perfectly if you also added Siciliy. As for pre-Punic Wars Sicily, though, it was split in half between a Greek East and a Carthaginian West.
Now onto France. The Merovingian to Carolingian transition is kind of an odd juncture to focus on given that dynastic changes happen pretty often and they stretch the definition of land theft pretty far. Of course, the Franks under the Merovingians actually
did "steal" most of this land (the Northwest from the Roman successor state of Syagrius, the Southwest from the Visigoths, the Southeast from the Burgundians). If you really insist on taking the Carolingian coup as your baseline, the first Carolingian king was Pepin the Short (yep, that's his name), not Charles Martel. Also, Corsica was not "stolen" by France by any stretch, Genoa ceded it willingly because they were sick of dealing with revolts there. Of course iirc Genoa did steal it from native populations there.
To be really petty, the Muslims never controlled Northern Spain. The Western part of it was controlled by a Visigothic successor state, while the part right under the Pyrenees was under Frankish rule for a while. But that's probably not worth fixing tbh.
Holland might have "stolen" Frisia from the Frisians, but it couldn't have stolen Holland itself.
You could say that the whole Netherlands was "stolen" from the Habsburgs, though. That would be facetious, but not incorrect by your definitions.
Moving Eastward, 28 is really bizarre. The area it covers was never Lithuanian. The inland part of it was always the core of the Polish state dating back to its origins. It was certainly stolen
from Poland many, many times, but the Poles themselves have one of the most legitimate claim to it of any nation anywhere (though I'm sure someone else lived there before their arrival). The coastal part was stolen from the local Baltic tribes by the Teutonic Knights (you can include it in 102 in that respect), then stolen back by Poland, then stolen back by Prussia, and finally stolen back by Poland in 1945. It's actually
24 (the european part of it at least) that was stolen from Lithuania (as a member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth)
by Russia.
Finally, the Dorians never really "stole" Greece - at most, that only applies to the Peloponese where they settled, but even then it's pretty telling how quickly they got inculturated. You could say Crete was "stolen" from the Minoans by the Myceneans. As for the rest, well, you can say it was stolen by the Ottoman Empire and then stolen back.
I'm sure there's a lot more I haven't caught, since I'm not exactly an expert.
