What is the oldest current coutry?

[Traitorfish]

The TC did say "without great change to the structure of the Government." By that criteria, I think San Marino is really the only one that's more than a century old at this point.

That depends what you mean by "great change". A strict definition would rule out San Marino, given that it was an Italian puppet-state from 1923-1943, which is certainly more than anything Britain has experienced since 1688.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well in that case, was San Marino's government actually altered, or was just their foreign policy subordinated?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well in that case, was San Marino's government actually altered, or was just their foreign policy subordinated?

I'm not sure about the internal mechanics, but all parties under the Sammarinese Fascist Party were banned in 1926, and the country ruled as a one-party state.

 

[Incodcito]

China doesn't qualify because of 1911-1928.

Why??

 

[Dachs]

Why??

No biggie, just a major revolution and colossal civil war that totally restructured the Chinese state and society. There was another big episode like that in the late forties, too.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sweden, maybe? It's been around since 970 without, I believe, any major break in political continuity. Denmark would beat it by a nose (965), but it was occupied by Nazi Germany for 1940-1945.

 

[Dachs]

It depends on how you interpret "civil wars" there, or the sixteenth-century political turmoil in Sweden (the mostly unrelated secession from the Kalmar union, and the Vasa civil war that Zygmunt III lost might count. Or the absolutist coup of Gustav III.

 

[Incodcito]

No biggie, just a major revolution and colossal civil war that totally restructured the Chinese state and society. There was another big episode like that in the late forties, too.

But that is what I mean, shouldn't the later episode be the one that disqualifies it from consideration and not the earlier one?

 

[Behind The Mask]

But that is what I mean, shouldn't the later episode be the one that disqualifies it from consideration and not the earlier one?

The one he mentioned is the straw that broke the camel's back...

Too bad they just kept piling them on.

 

[Dachs]

Fair enough; I was working forward, and not backward, like I ought to have been. We would probably start from 1948-9 with China, then.

 

[LightSpectra]

The problem with this thread is that the criteria are too vague. If we count the subordination of San Marino to the Italian fascists as being a substantial change in government, then I would say the longest continuous state would be the United Kingdom, which has not had a revolution since 1688 or a civil war since 1708; unless you count the partitioning of Ireland in 1922, in which case a better example might be the United States, which has had a continuous government from 1789, with the exception of the American Civil War in 1861 (are we counting that?), etc...

 

[Dachs]

The ACW doesn't count as per the OP; civil wars when the rebels lost aren't considered. But open to argument, of course. McPherson's thesis of the "Republican Revolution" would seem like a good point to bring up there.

 

[SerriaFox]

Yes, someone fulfilled my secret wish of having the US declared the oldest stable government. Take that you Up starts from Europe.

Seriously, Britain would be a candidate in my mind. Not having study European history all that deeply. Did the addition and subtraction of Ireland, Scotland and the rest of the Empire change England that much? For instance I don't think of the additions of each state to the United States to be a major difference to the country.

Nor do I think, the wartime-occupation of Denmark by Germany should be
a dis-qualifier.

Anyway I have learned of at least one country I never heard of by making this thread.

 

[Dachs]

Well, the Home Rule Crisis in Britain almost set off a civil war in England, not just Ireland. And Irish terrorism constantly affected people in England (and vice versa, of course) throughout the century. It was a traumatic change for everybody. And since the whole episode was combined with a radical restructuring of government - the Parliament Act 1911 - it's certainly worthy of serious thought as to whether that 'disqualifies' the UK.

 

[Plotinus]

Come on, would you really call the Parliament Act a "radical restructuring of government"?

 

[Dachs]

Yes, I would, especially by comparison with, say, the San Marino fascists.

 

[Plotinus]

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I probably am): but the Parliament Act has hardly ever been used. Certainly it altered the balance of power within the government by formally removing the ability of the House of Lords to block legislation coming from the House of Commons. But the House of Lords didn't often do that anyway. And since then, it's been used only a few times. The only use of it to effect really major legislation was in 1914, to bring about Home Rule in Ireland, and that never happened owing to some kind of distraction on the Continent.

Certainly one can see it as an important part of a significant crisis that was going on at the time, but I'm still not convinced it was a "radical restructuring". Nothing like, say, the Reform Acts of the nineteenth century or indeed the one of 1918 which more than doubled the franchise.

 

[Dachs]

No, you're not wrong, I'm just tired.

 

[Plotinus]

Heh. Me too.

 

[GoodGame]

The TC did say "without great change to the structure of the Government." By that criteria, I think San Marino is really the only one that's more than a century old at this point.

The USA is easily more than two centuries old at this point . But I get your intended point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino