[OFF] How old is your country?

[Victoria]

I'm going to be a little contentious and ask why a 'nation' is described as when Europeans settled there

If you asked a Maori how old is their nation they certainly would not be saying when the white man arrived. It is all interpretation and my view is my city is my nation because it was a very ancient key river crossing and is to me identified in its own right. Back before many tribes merged it was the river crossing. Yep, I am pushing the boundaries but that’s because like you this concept of country I find a bit forced.

@adcarrymaokai does the above answer your question? It is interpretive, includes how you feel and is a bit of fun. But also I have found some great informative posts.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

¡Howdy y’all, soy de Tejas! Despite being inhabited by some combination of Puebloan, Mississippian, and Mesoamerican peoples for thousands of years, there are six significant dates in Texas history corresponding to six national identities aka “Six Flags Over Texas”.

Spain (1519): Spain was the first European nation to claim sovereignty over Texas, but did not colonize the area until after the French attempted to. The area was under Spanish authority for over three centuries until the Mexican Revolution.

France (1685): France was the second European nation to lay claim to Texas after French nobleman “La Salle” failed to locate Louisiana and established the unsuccessful Fort St. Louis in the area. The French did not attempt to colonize Texas again.

Mexico (1821): After the Mexican Revolution, Texas was incorporated into the province “Coahuila y Tejas”. The area was settled by Anglo-American pioneers, which clashed often with the fledgling Mexican government.

Republic of Texas (1836): Led by Stephen F. Austin, the English speaking settlers revolted against Mexico and successfully established an independent republic until agreeing to join the United States.

United States (1845): Texas has been a US State for well over a century and a half, although briefly seceding from the union during the American Civil War.

Confederacy (1861): During the Civil War, Texas sided with the other Southern states over the issue of slavery until being defeated and readmitted to the Union in 1865.

Although there is no clear consensus on the exact origin of Texan identity, I would date it from its Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836, making it approximately 183.6 years old.

 

[Rambo919]

SA has a odd history, taking the western concept of country (which was historically a foreign concept to african blacks), there are three dates.

1795 for the initial colony (224 Years)
1838 for the separatist republics (181 Years)
1910 for the forced union of colony, republics and other areas (109 Years)

 

[Aurelesk]

Lastly, the French Guiana poster lays claim to... Gauls and Romans? I mean, 90% of French Guiana population is descendants of African slaves and natives, so wouldn't it be more correct to trace the lineage to something like Ghana and Nigeria? At some point in history, Algeria was an integrated part of France, but would Algerians consider themselves French, or... Gaul, or... Roman?

I do not master the english language, so I apologise if I mislead people. I have still a lot to learn: you can share your opinion and correct me if I am wrong. I want to correct myself and this is what I thought I was writing:

• French Guiana is not an independant country. You can't set a date at the Declaration of Independance because it has none. The earliest date could be at 1503 with the first settlement, but, for me, a settlement is not yet a state. I guess 1643 will be a little more believable with the foundation of Cayenne and the desire to have a durable presence in the territory. But, I don't really know.
• France is really harder. I was taught that the birth of France was at the baptism of Clovis I at 496, but that feel real weird to me. As if my history teacher want to legitimise France history. I will set it either at 843 when the territory of "France" and "Germany" kind of split up, or 1190 when the king formalize France as the name of the country. But, I don't really know.

Furthermore, French Guiana is a none homogenous melting pot (different area have different ratio of each ethicities). Since France do not allow to make ethnic survey, and the territory is full of migrants (around 30% of total population) and illegal immigrant, it is not easy to have real demographic of the population. There is no majority population or representative. I guess the Creole (people of mixed African and French ancestry) are the more prevalent overall, but it is not even sure nowaday. Where I live, the maroon population is clearly the most numerous. And there is a lot of over ethnicities: the haitians, the brazilians, the "europeans" (as people with mainly french, english, spanish, protuguese, dutch... ancestors), the amerindians, the chinese, the hmong, the indians, the vietnamese, the lebanese, the javanese...

 

[Doclea]

I am from Montenegro which regained independence in 2006. But we existed in few other forms, from first slavic settling as Byzantine vassal since 625, but we gained independence as Doclea(name taken from Roman city that was capital of Praevalitana) in 1042(we were strongest south slavic state for some time). Since then we were independent in few other forms as Kingdom of Zeta and Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro(Crna Gora), even thru Ottoman times, so if u count first settling its 1,394 years, first independent state 977 years, or last reincarnation, just 13 years .

 

[Kwami]

I'm going to be a little contentious and ask why a 'nation' is described as when Europeans settled there. For instance, @Kwami reported the first settlements of the United States being during the 1,500s and that is clearly untrue! And this isn't even a ideological thing, it is just factual.

What are you going on about? The people that lived in North America before the first European settlers had their own groups, tribes, and nations, but none of them were the USA. The European settlers, which started landing in the 1500s, formed the USA.

But yes, I agree with the definition of 'nation' being the longest period during which the region has adopted the current configuration of constitution and governance.

See? You even agree. So what was that other nonsense about?

 

[Danthor]

I'm from Chile.
My country is officially 209 years old, but if you count from the first Spanish settlements, it would be around 500 years old

 

[Pure24]

What are you going on about? The people that lived in North America before the first European settlers had their own groups, tribes, and nations, but none of them were the USA. The European settlers, which started landing in the 1500s, formed the USA.



See? You even agree. So what was that other nonsense about?

Told you I was going to be controversial, no need to get all triggered about it. Civilisations are all arbitrary anyways, it doesn't really matter how you define it, so long as we can agree on the definition.

I agree on the definition, but quoting the Europeans who's descendants later founded the USA does NOT stick to the definition. Because the pilgrims were NOT the United States of America. Even though their descendants would go on to declare itself as a nation, the inhabitants of North American before the pilgrims arrived still qualify as Americans, and so by virtue of their descendants going on to be Americans, one could still argue that they too are 'early' Americans.

See, we all agree that there are many ways of looking at it. I'm just giving my own perspective about it. I don't think you're wrong (or anybody, for that matter) because it all depends on the context.
In my context, if it is when the nation was declared, then it is 1776. All peoples before that don't count because none of them were Americans. And if the 'ancestors' of future Americans count, then all ancestors of future Americans count.

That is only fair

 

[Kwami]

Told you I was going to be controversial, no need to get all triggered about it. Civilisations are all arbitrary anyways, it doesn't really matter how you define it, so long as we can agree on the definition.

I agree on the definition, but quoting the Europeans who's descendants later founded the USA does NOT stick to the definition. Because the pilgrims were NOT the United States of America. Even though their descendants would go on to declare itself as a nation, the inhabitants of North American before the pilgrims arrived still qualify as Americans, and so by virtue of their descendants going on to be Americans, one could still argue that they too are 'early' Americans.

That's why I said 1776 in my post. I only mentioned the earlier settlers because the OP mentioned the Portuguese settlers in Brazil and I found that interesting.

I think you're trying to start trouble for no good reason. Let's go back to having fun.

 

[Pure24]

That's why I said 1776 in my post. I only mentioned the earlier settlers because the OP mentioned the Portuguese settlers in Brazil and I found that interesting.

I think you're trying to start trouble for no good reason. Let's go back to having fun.

I don't think disagreeing with you is 'trying to start trouble'. Again, you're not wrong! Just presenting a different perspective is all. Perhaps you're the one taking it way too seriously.

This isn't meant to be a political discussion. I know the platform to do it on. And I know that this isn't it. Just didn't know that I'm not allowed to disagree on a perspective without it being construed as trying for some political agenda. I'm probably not even of the same continent as you, I have no context of your culture and what my comment may have made you think of me. Apologies if I offended. I just ask that you realise I'm not using YOUR cultural context here, but mine.

Anyways, on a Civ-related note... I think another way of defining it would be to use the year of birth of the Civ Leader!! Those are guys are immortal.

EDIT: just realised that not every country is represented so... poor idea. Nevermind!

 

[Naktis]

I'm from Lithuania

My country name first time mentioned was in 1009 AD. Before that we were part of baltic tribes...

 

[Kwami]

I don't think disagreeing with you is 'trying to start trouble'. Again, you're not wrong! Just presenting a different perspective is all. Perhaps you're the one taking it way too seriously.

But, that's the thing. You're not disagreeing with me. You're taking what I wrote out of context and making up a controversy. We both agree that the US was founded in 1776 and we both agree that people lived here before the Europeans arrived and we both agree that neither those people not the earlier European settlers founded the USA. There's no disagreement on any of this.

I only mentioned the earlier European settlers because the OP did and I found it interesting. I never claimed that they represented the USA or anything even close to that. You made that up to start trouble. You knew it, too, because you even wrote that what you were saying would be controversial. Why do that?

I'm done with this nonsense. Let's go back to having fun. I like reading about the other nations.

 

[leif erikson]

I don't think disagreeing with you is 'trying to start trouble'. Again, you're not wrong! Just presenting a different perspective is all. Perhaps you're the one taking it way too seriously.

But, that's the thing. You're not disagreeing with me. You're taking what I wrote out of context and making up a controversy. We both agree that the US was founded in 1776 and we both agree that people lived here before the Europeans arrived and we both agree that neither those people not the earlier European settlers founded the USA. There's no disagreement on any of this.

Moderator Action: You agree on more than you disagree on, so enough is enough. Please move on as friends.

I'm done with this nonsense. Let's go back to having fun. I like reading about the other nations.

Exactly!

 

[TeddyMain]

Considering someone has already done America, I guess I can go over Texas history

Prepare for a mouthful fellas

Native American Settlements (Caddo, Comanche, Apache, Choctaw,etc) ~ 500 BC (Fun Fact: the word Texas comes from the Caddoan language of Hasinai, táyshaʔ, which means friendship. Quite fitting for southern hospitality)
French Texas - 1684-1689
Spanish Texas - 1689-1821
Coahuila y Tejas (Mexican State) - 1821-1836
Republic of Texas - 1836-1845 (9, going on 10, years)
American State (Pre-Civil War) - 1845-1860
Confederate State - 1860-1865
American State (again) - 1865-Now (154 years)

So if we include Native American history, Texas has been around for around 2,500 years.

 

[Arraz]

I m both French (Metropolitan) and Tunisian.


The Kingdom of France was created in 987 (people could argue 481) so 1032yo.( Personally, I would say ~1000yo)
Technically speaking, the "Republic of France" is only 144 yo though. (Galia on the other hand is 2187yo)

For Tunisia, it's a bit complicated. For most of it's history, it's been part of bigger entities (Carthage, Hafsid kingdom, Ifriqiya etc...) and though it wasnt called "Tunisia" it was the capital of the said entities. (2833 yo if we include Carthage)

Most Tunisians (including me) would say ~3000 yo

As an independent-ish state (still part of the Ottoman empire), it was created in 1575, then called "regency of Tunis" so 445 yo. Technically speaking, the "Republic of Tunisia" as a completely independent country is 62 yo.

 

[mathieuwang]

This thread is very interesting for me. I have realized how geologically diverse civ players are, and also learned a lot about other country's histories by reading the chronological lists in this thread.

I think it is hard to define the age of a country accepted by everyone because each people has his/her own point of view: politically, culturally, geologically, etc.

For me, I am from China. This country is:

70 years old if we count from 1949, when CCP took over the mainland.

107 years old if we count from 1912, when Republic of China ended the history of dynasties and emperors.

2240 years old if we count from 221 BC, when the first centralized feudal empire -- Qin Dynasty was founded by Qin Shi Huang, who is well-known by Civ 6 players.

(2860 years old if we count from 841 BC, since when we can construct a year-by-year chronology of written history. All records before this year can only have estimated timestamps.)

About 3800 years old if we count from around 1600 BC, when the Shang Dynasty established. Its existence is supported by both written history and archeological findings, thus largely accepted by scientists. I will take this number as the answer to "how old is your country" not only because I think it is the origin of Chinese culture, but also because it is the largest number in this list ;-D

 

[pkaem]

Practically german but if I define my cultural heritage more regional, I'm from hamburg which was founded roughly 500 A.D. So this would be 1519 years.

 

[Ferocitus]

This thread is very interesting for me. I have realized how geologically diverse civ players are, and also learned a lot about other country's histories by reading the chronological lists in this thread.

I think it is hard to define the age of a country accepted by everyone because each people has his/her own point of view: politically, culturally, geologically, etc.

For me, I am from China. This country is:

70 years old if we count from 1949, when CCP took over the mainland.

107 years old if we count from 1912, when Republic of China ended the history of dynasties and emperors.

2240 years old if we count from 221 BC, when the first centralized feudal empire -- Qin Dynasty was founded by Qin Shi Huang, who is well-known by Civ 6 players.

(2860 years old if we count from 841 BC, since when we can construct a year-by-year chronology of written history. All records before this year can only have estimated timestamps.)

About 3800 years old if we count from around 1600 BC, when the Shang Dynasty established. Its existence is supported by both written history and archeological findings, thus largely accepted by scientists. I will take this number as the answer to "how old is your country" not only because I think it is the origin of Chinese culture, but also because it is the largest number in this list ;-D

What do you think of the findings near Liangzhu that indicate an earlier civilization that is 1700 years older than the Shang?

The sophistication of the civilisation that flourished at Liangzhu from approximately 3300-2300 BC is evident not only in the precious finds from the town’s high-status
cemetery, but also from a remarkable network of monumental earthen dams, amounting to an extensive system of hydraulic works, and carefully managed rice paddy fields,
arranged across the surrounding area.

A jade "cong" from the Liangzhu region, circa 3200BC.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'm from Lithuania

My country name first time mentioned was in 1009 AD. Before that we were part of baltic tribes...

But do you mean February 14, 1009AD, or are you a damned heretic and believe it was March 9, 1009AD?

Labanaktis Naktis!
Liolia.

Translation, just in case CFC thinks it was something rude.
Goodnight Night!
The nickname for people with my actual first name.

 

[Mahi]

I'm from Denmark and i think we have one of the oldest monarch lines in current history, which origins back to Harald Blåtand (Bluetooth), who lived 935-985. Everything is quite well documented for the origin of Denmark. Harald raised what we call "Jellingestenen" (The Jellinge Stone). The stone announces that Harald claims all of Denmark and Norway to be Christians. The inscription says:

"King Harald ordered these kumbls made in memory of Gorm, his father, and in memory of Thyra, his mother; that Harald who won for himself all of Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christian"

So even though you can argue Denmark was older (at least, when Harald's father lived: Gorm the Old) the "birth" of our modern nation is widely considered to be founded, when Harald proclaimed the Danes to Christian. I guess because it was more or less the first rule

If anyone would be interested there is quite new documentation, which is called "The History of Denmark", which tells the story of Denmark since the early stone age. It's very well produced and I think the three first or four episodes are interesting for everyone, who has an interest in how a nation is born. Don't mind the later episodes because they will go into political topics, which naturally also is quite important for the rise of a nation.
I did find a fellow on reddit who created English subtitles for this documentary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Denmark/comments/b3b60j/historien_om_danmark_subtitles_now_available_in/
Link to the series can be found here (and yes, it's legally free):

Harald's Kingdom is quite different from the Denmark we know today as you can see in the picture below. Red colour is Harald's kingdom and the yellow ones are his allies and vassals.