Which Country has spent the longest Time not under Occupation

READ THIS FIRST BEFORE POSTING!!!!!!

Things to take note of:
1) Once a country has been occupied, no matter how long it had previously spent unoccupied, the record is reset. (Like the cultural points of a newly captured city)
2) A country is considered occupied once the occupation period last at least 6 months
3) A country is considered occupied when it fulfills either or both of these points (Severity of points is debatable, etc - is losing Siberia equivalent to losing Russia's 10 largest cities? ).
I) When a nation loses 25% of ground land is lost
II) When a nation loses a significant/important part regardless of size (Example - if the entire Eastern shore of America, measuring 25 km in is very small in percentage of land compared to all of USA, but contains many important cities, New York, Boston, Miami Etc)
4) National succession should be the political body that next takes over that is politically, geographically and culturally similar to the predecessor. This is debatable, especially when Succession line in unclear (etc England - Great Britain - United Kingdom) (Branderburg - Prussia - German Empire - Weimar Republic - Nazi Germany - West and East Germany - Germany)
5) When considering land lost, compare it to the Borders of the modern successor today. (Occupation of Dutch East Indies will not count as Occupation of Netherlands)(Debatable in some cases.)
6) Make a decision when opposing dates are chosen as last occupation, select support for one and make argument.

Countries with Solid arguments
1) Sweden Never (Prove me wrong CFCers!)
1) Portugal (420 years) Last occupied by Spanish Troops
2) San Marino (270 Years) Last occupied by Papal forces in 1739
3) Liechtenstein (194 years) Last occupied by Coalition Troops in 1815.
4) Switzerland (194 Years) Independence granted on 1815.
5) Brazil (187 Years) Independence from Portugal in 1822.

Countries with Debatable arguments - Make a stand regarding these. Which Date is stronger?
1)Thailand (241 Years) - Last occupied by Burmese armies in 1768. (Debatable, one can interpret Thailand giving in to Japanese demands as a foreign occupation. )
2)United States of America (226 Years or 195 Years) - Last significantly occupied by the British in 1776-83, Battle of Brooklyn, Evacuation of New York. OR
The occupation of the US capital Washington - 1814
3) Russia (533 Years) Great stand on the Ugra river - 1476 (Debatable, Both Hitler, the German Empire and Napoleon took large chunks significant chucks of Russia in 1942, 1917 and 1812 Respectably)
4)The UK (321 Years) Last significantly occupied by Dutch forces in 1688, Debatable. Any more opposition or can I put it on the confirmed list?

When you have to specify so many conditions and definitions in the question, is it still a meaningful question at all? Any arguing about this is going to be about what "counts" as meeting the rather arbitrary criteria - it's not going to be substantial discussion of material facts.

Plotinus said:

When you have to specify so many conditions and definitions in the question, is it still a meaningful question at all? Any arguing about this is going to be about what "counts" as meeting the rather arbitrary criteria - it's not going to be substantial discussion of material facts.

Click to expand...

Well if no pre-existing conditions exist, then the thread will be full of "What kind of conditions should there be?" and then people will spend it talking about what conditions there should be. If not that, then people would post a nation that to some people wont count because of this or that. I merely limited it all so the few nations who fit in the conditions but still have a few unclear dates such as those with a debatable base can be argued.

These threads usually end up as a mess because everybody has a different definition of whats what. I mean just look at those "most influetial people/ best/worst person in this threads."

I would rather not have 1 thread to discuss each country's last occupation.

Not as old as other examples, but Brazil has never been significantly occupied by outsiders since its independence. the only instance would be some insignificant disputed border land during the begining of the war of the triple alliance against paraguay in 1865.

If you count since 1822 (Brazillian independence from the United Kingdom with Portugal) its 187 years.

Probably Iceland or Greenland. Turkey and Iran are also long time independent.

Iceland: It depends, but for absolut full autonomy its 1940 they got independence

Greenland: is not independent

Turkey: does the ottoman empire ring any bells?

Iran: does the islamic revolution ring any bells?

Turkey/Iran has been through quite a bit of political change, which really makes their present forms something quite different from what they formerly was.

Racsoviale said:

Turkey: does the ottoman empire ring any bells?

Iran: does the islamic revolution ring any bells?

Turkey/Iran has been through quite a bit of political change, which really makes their present forms something quite different from what they formerly was.

Click to expand...

This does not count as foreign occupation. Read the rules.

Should a change in the government forced by an foreign invasion count as occupation?

Agarwaen said:

Should a change in the government forced by an foreign invasion count as occupation?

Click to expand...

No. (ten char)

What about bits of a country? If so, the Isles of Scilly probably win

What about Britain (or England) and Australia/New Zealand (not sure if they're technically still a part of Britain)?

Once again, Japan. About 2500 years of independence, from 660 BC to 1945 AD.

aronnax said:

2) Portugal (197 years) Last occupied by French Troops

Click to expand...

The french never controlled much ground (not even the capital, which by then was way beyond Napoleon's reach)... And the Hapsburg kings before that had been invited in, so I don't know whether that would also count as an occupation (debatable, like England, 1688).

Cheezy the Wiz said:

Once again, Japan. About 2500 years of independence, from 660 BC to 1945 AD.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan
1945-1952. Japan was were Allied Armies were held on their way to Korea.

innonimatu said:

The french never controlled much ground (not even the capital, which by then was way beyond Napoleon's reach)... And the Hapsburg kings before that had been invited in, so I don't know whether that would also count as an occupation (debatable, like England, 1688).

Click to expand...

Yes, but Portugal was then "occupied" by British Forces that landed in Lisbon to fight the French.

Chieftess said:

What about Britain (or England) and Australia/New Zealand (not sure if they're technically still a part of Britain)?

Click to expand...

I could argue the tangata whenua were occupied by British settlers after teh Treaty of Waitangi was signed.

Racsoviale said:

Iceland: It depends, but for absolut full autonomy its 1940 they got independence

Greenland: is not independent

Turkey: does the ottoman empire ring any bells?

Iran: does the islamic revolution ring any bells?

Turkey/Iran has been through quite a bit of political change, which really makes their present forms something quite different from what they formerly was.

Click to expand...

alcal said:

Probably Iceland or Greenland. Turkey and Iran are also long time independent.

Click to expand...

I thought about Turkey, but from what I read from the Wiki, the French, British and Greeks did occupy a significant amount of Turkish Territories. Much of Southern Turkey was invaded by French Troops, the Area around the sea of Azoz, (Istanbul, Bursa) which is like Turkey's economic breadbasket, was taken, the Greeks penetrated far into Syrma and the regions around it. That should qualify as significant occupation. If not, then Turkey was last occupied when the Timur empire invaded in around 1402.

Iran was occupied during WWII by British and Soviet forces.

Flying Pig said:

What about bits of a country? If so, the Isles of Scilly probably win

Click to expand...

Are we bringing that up again?

Agarwaen said:

Should a change in the government forced by an foreign invasion count as occupation?

Click to expand...

Forced as in used economic sanctions and international diplomatic pressure? No. Landing troops and forcing a coup? Yes.

Chieftess said:

What about Britain (or England) and Australia/New Zealand (not sure if they're technically still a part of Britain)?

Click to expand...

Well I'm trying to get answers here, when was Britain last significantly occupied? 1688 by the Dutch? Or by Bonnie Charles Edward. I think 1688, because Charles raised a Scottish Army in Scotland to fight British forces, and also because he is by right, an Englishmen and would count more as an uprising. What do you think?

Australia and New Zealand, I guess it was from the moment they receive Dominion hood. Which was in 1901 and 1907 respectfully. But then when they receive "independence" is debatable.

Someone! Make a stand on Russia, the UK and Sweden! They may have dates that are longer than current contender San Marino 270 years.

aronnax said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan
1945-1952. Japan was were Allied Armies were held on their way to Korea.

Click to expand...

Huh? His dates are up to 1945 only.

But I think that 2500 years is too long. I mean, who did the land originally belong to anyway? AFAIK, a bunch of Caucasian people who became increasingly displaced by Asiatic migrants from the Asian continent who occupied the island.

Or by Bonnie Charles Edward. I think 1688, because Charles raised a Scottish Army in Scotland to fight British forces, and also because he is by right, an Englishmen and would count more as an uprising. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Charles Edward Stuart was at best half-English on his father's side, his mother was Polish. He was born in Rome and didn't set foot anywhere in the British Isles until the 45 making any suggestion that he was English is rather weak.

The 45 was an interesting point since the forces and equipment Charles brought were pitifully small, so it would be better classed as an uprising or civil war rather than a true invasion, especially since the aim was to restore the Old Pretender rather than impose control by a foreign power. It certainly doesn't compare to the 1688 revolution given the size of the force William brought with him to overthrow James II.

aelf said:

Huh? His dates are up to 1945 only.

But I think that 2500 years is too long. I mean, who did the land originally belong to anyway? AFAIK, a bunch of Caucasian people who became increasingly displaced by Asiatic migrants from the Asian continent who occupied the island.

Click to expand...

Huh? What dates are up to 1945 only?.

Cheezy the Wiz said:

Once again, Japan. About 2500 years of independence, from 660 BC to 1945 AD.

Click to expand...

aronnax said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan
1945-1952. Japan was were Allied Armies were held on their way to Korea.

Click to expand...

10 characters