Explain why your country is better than the US

[Steph]

:Romania was a vassal or a tributary to Ottomans for about 189 years, but it was never annexed by any of those above! The Ottomans annexed Dobrogea, which is about 1/5 of Wallachia, the Austrians annexed Transylvania and Bukovine, and the Russians annexed half of Moldova, what they currently call "Republic of Moldova". Half of Moldova and almost the whole Wallachia were never annexed, I can prove it with scanned documents and maps (P.S. never trust Turkish maps, they'll show even Ukraine in the Ottoman empire).

During the 18th century, Wallachia was invaded by Austrian, Russian, Ottomans, with several forced change old leadership. Even if Wallachia was not officially annexed, end of 18th century and early 19th century were not a time when Romania was really independant.

That's why such list of "old countries" are hard to do, because how would you count such times?

 

[The Last Conformist]

The USSR was formally established in 1922. Prior to that the empire was still officially "Russia", IIUC.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Allright I get IIRC, but what, for the love of Thor, is IIUC?

 

[Steph]

Allright I get IIRC, but what, for the love of Thor, is IIUC?

If I Understand Correctly, IIUC.

 

[Mirc]

During the 18th century, Wallachia was invaded by Austrian, Russian, Ottomans, with several forced change old leadership. Even if Wallachia was not officially annexed, end of 18th century and early 19th century were not a time when Romania was really independant.

That's why such list of "old countries" are hard to do, because how would you count such times?

That's true. Independence is hard to define, in these times.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If I Understand Correctly, IIUC.

Ah, I see. Thanks :up:

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

So, "GBR" was not until 1707. Yeah but, correct me if I'm wrong here, but England has really always been the puppet master, calling the shots, steadily dominating, joining together, and consolidating the British Isles (though Ireland got turned loose... most uncharacteristic). It was really England, basically conquering, dividing, and quasi-annexing the realms Rome never could, taming those unruly Scots and Irish over a long period of time, steadily outlasting them, beating down their ability to resist the inevitable.

So, in the process, England had to 'morph' a little bit, during some of the changes which required compromise (since they otherwise would never go quietly), though all these changes were voluntary, internally. But still, they were always more or less calling the shots, steadily having their way with the GBR realm. I mean, everybody knows England dominates the UK. I picture the UK of GBR, as England, dragging Wales by the neck, Scotland by the leg, and N. Ireland by the wrist, into the world spotlight, and saying, "this is us... we are a country.... bloody Hell."

And they just go along with it, their ability and will to resist having been thoroughly eradicated, over hundreds of years, in such close proximity to the English grit. Anway, that's my idea of England... I'd say you've been around since you kicked the Heathens out, what, like 1k years ago. Something like that. I'm mostly talking out of my arse here, trying to amuse you.

You are amusing me In fairness, the bolded part is a pretty good summary of our history. It can also be summerised as thus:

England > Celts

The point I was rather pedantically making above is that "England" ceased to exist at the signing of the Act of Union. So that makes the UK only 300 years old at best.

We didn't have much of a shindig though

 

[mitsho]

I get the feeling that the CIA factbook is not consistant in itself in this regard. I won't comment on the others since my knowledge there is marginal, but Switzerland, in my opinion, wasn't really founded until 1848 (so that'd actually make it younger than the US).

of course, the official line is 1291 (and most swiss will call that date, it's actuall what's taught at school).
But if we extend the courtesy to switzerland, saying it was founded in 1291, i can't see why russia shouldn't be much older either

edit: oh, just a small correction to mitsho: Sonderbund war was in 1847, not 48 /klugscheisser

yes, of course. I'm sorry, 1847, then declaration of independence in 1848. sorry.

To add to the ridiculeness of 1291, August 1st it should be added that... The treaty of 1291 between 3 mountain regions was just one in a whole series of defensive pacts against the Austrians/Habsburg from the whole 13th century. First around 1256 or so I think, last one (and most important one, thus most viable date) from 1307. 1291 was only chosen in 1848 as there you could extract an "exact" date for the national day (August, 1st) and it was more close to the Tell story (but Tell actually isn't involved in August, 1st at all).

So, enough nitpicking, but that really is a poor choice by the CIA. The list really does seem weird, but I actually think this thread has become a dead horse...

mick

 

[Irish Caesar]

England > Celts

You, sir, have earned yourself a

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

You, sir, have earned yourself a

I like the smiley but I don't know what it means

 

[Mirc]

It used to be called but it got removed because it was considered useless. I have no idea what it's supposed to represent.

 

[MobBoss]

I like the smiley but I don't know what it means

You are british and you are not familiar with the Monty Python 'fish dance' skit?

Now thats truly shocking.

 

[cthom]

You, sir, have earned yourself a

pure class!

 

[Lotus49]

Ok, USSR was from 1922 to 1991. Yeah but, correct me if I'm wrong here, but Russia has really always been the puppet master, ...

So why does United Kindgom starts in the 10th century in CIA factbook, and Russia in 1991?

The problem of this list is it's not consistent

It's the difference between the country naturally evolving, versus the country actually falling, IMO. I'd think in the consideration of Russia, the later is the case.

I'm not saying it isn't a bit complicated, though. And up for debate.

However, I have come to the final conclusion, that will put this entire sub-thread to rest...

YES, the U.S. is not as old as Europe (including Romania)... but why is this? Simple: It's because EUROPE was so incredibly SLOW to discover, colonize, and build in the 'New World'. Thus, they share the burden equally for this... OUTRAGE!!

 

[Mirc]

It's the difference between the country naturally evolving, versus the country actually falling, IMO. I'd think in the consideration of Russia, the later is the case.

I'm not saying it isn't a bit complicated, though. And up for debate.

However, I have come to the final conclusion, that will put this entire sub-thread to rest...

YES, the U.S. is not as old as Europe (including Romania)... but why is this? Simple: It's because EUROPE was so incredibly SLOW to discover, colonize, and build in the 'New World'. Thus, they share the burden equally for this... OUTRAGE!!

Still faster than China and India...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

You are british and you are not familiar with the Monty Python 'fish dance' skit?

Now thats truly shocking.

I'm far too young to remember any of that

Besides, having googled it, I still don't know how it relates here?

 

[cthom]

I'm far too young to remember any of that

Besides, having googled it, I still don't know how it relates here?

at the end of the sketch, one of the 'dancers' gets slapped by a very big fish. 'england>celts' has earned that fish

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Ok, USSR was from 1922 to 1991. Yeah but, correct me if I'm wrong here, but Russia has really always been the puppet master, ...

So why does United Kindgom starts in the 10th century in CIA factbook, and Russia in 1991?

The problem of this list is it's not consistent

Yep, some people tend to look into CIA factbook to find his "facts" becuase a) it is easy, b) it fulfills his agenda. But it has very low quality info, doesnt indicate any sources (it must be secret ) and most of the data there is biased, very outdated, incomplete, or plain wrong.

 

[Steph]

It may even lists Iraq has having WMD

 

[Phlegmak]

Yep, some people tend to look into CIA factbook to find his "facts" becuase a) it is easy, b) it fulfills his agenda. But it has very low quality info, doesnt indicate any sources (it must be secret ) and most of the data there is biased, very outdated, incomplete, or plain wrong.

What is

biased
very outdated
incomplete
or plain wrong

about it?