Which Country has spent the longest Time not under Occupation

[aronnax]

10 characters

Oh. Thanks

A long and impressive record that was overturned in 1945... Next!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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

The Korean War began in 1950.

And yes, I know that Japan was occupied in 1945. That's why my time frame for the record ends at 1945. 660 BC to 1945 AD.

A long and impressive record that was overturned in 1945... Next

So are you going to add Japan to the list or not? It is a very clear winner, by an enormous margin.

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.

I began with the first Emperor of Japan. His dynasty has lasted to the present day as the sole royal family of Japan. I don't see why it doesn't qualify.

 

[frekk]

Idunno ... you can't really qualify the "Emperor" from 660 BC, since he didn't control more than a small kingdom within Japan at that point. In fact, the Japanese as a whole didn't control all of Japan in 660BC; large parts were still occupied by the Jomon and Ainu indigenes.

Japan - in its present territory, including Hokkaido etc - wasn't truly a unified country and culture until very very recently; during the Meiji Restoration in the late 1800s.

 

[aelf]

I began with the first Emperor of Japan. His dynasty has lasted to the present day as the sole royal family of Japan. I don't see why it doesn't qualify.

That's somewhat legendary. I think the Japanese of today really started migrating during the Yayoi period, which is a little later (from about 500 BC). Even after that, it's hard to start thinking of Japan as an entity unless you believe the legends:

The earliest written records about people in Japan are from Chinese sources from this period. Wa, the Japanese pronunciation of an early Chinese name for Japan, was mentioned in 57 AD; the Na state of Wa received a golden seal from the Emperor Guangwu of the Later Han Dynasty. This event was recorded in the Hou Han Shu compiled by Fan Ye in the 5th century. The seal itself was discovered in northern Kyūshū in the 18th century.[13] Wa was also mentioned in 257 in the Wei zhi, a section of the San Guo Zhi compiled by the 3rd century scholar Chen Shou.[14]

Early Chinese historians described Wa as a land of hundreds of scattered tribal communities, not the unified land with a 700-year tradition as laid out in the 8th-century work Nihon Shoki, a part-mythical, part-historical account of Japan which dates the foundation of the country at 660 BC.

EDIT: x-post

 

[innonimatu]

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

Please, don't even try to credit the british with single-handedly winning the Peninsular War. The british did maintained a large army in the european territory of Portugal but by then the capital had been moved to Brazil, which was not occupied in any way. Even if you were to count the whole european territory as "occupied" (and it wasn't) it would be a tiny percentage, not anywhere near your criteria of 25%.

 

[frekk]

Wait, are you saying Portugal wasn't occupied just because the capital fled to Brazil? Or because there were no operations in the remote parts of the country?

By this reckoning, the Germans never occupied France either. In fact, hardly anyone was ever occupied.

 

[Masada]

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

Some of them deserved it

 

[Traitorfish]

5)The UK (321 Years or 264 Years) Last significantly occupied by Dutch forces in 1688, Debatable, Significant part of Great Britain was occupied by Charles Edward Stuart in 1745 (Though this is more classified as an uprising than foreign rule)

I would dispute whether one can really classify the so-called Glorious Revolution as a "foreign occupation". It was essentially a coup, merely one which was oartially orchestrated by a foreign monarch, leading an army partially composed of foreign troops. At no point was Britain under what could be considered military occupation by the Dutch state; it was a faction of the English parliament, after all, which invited William and Mary to assume the throne, and which was in power after the coup. The most recent true occupation was that of 1066, during the Norman Conquest.
Also, yes, the Jacobite insurrections were just that, and represented part of an ongoing civil war within Great Britain, rather than by any foreign power. Charles, despite his non-British upbringing, represented an Anglo-Scots family, and drew his support primarily from Scottish Jacobites.

 

[Verbose]

3) Sweden (200 Years or 333 years) Last significantly occupied by Russian troops in Northern Sweden. (Debatable, over significance of occupation. If occupation of Northern, not as significant as the south, Province is not counted than, 1676 Occupation of Scania by Danish Troops

The Russian occupation of the north, while worrying (but the fear was mostly that next they would strike directly at Stockholm across from Finland), was pretty insignificant. They had no logistic chance of moving south and heading for Stockholm, or anywhere else that mattered, unless supplied by sea, which wasn't really possible at the time. There were no population centers to speak of up north, and nothing of real economic value. We are talking about the occupation of at best Sweden's two northernmost provinces, which are huge, but mostly empty forest, with a liberal dose of mountains and and even arctic wastes (beautiful, but still), which at the time held about 60 000 people, out of Sweden's approx. 2.4 million, i.e. 2.5%. Mining, lumber and paper industries up there all became important only decades later through industrialisation. In the rural Sweden of the Napoleonic wars, occupying wasteland in the north, and at best a couple of half-decent ports, wasn't significant by any stretch.

The claim for the Danish occupation of Scanie, for a year 1675-1676, is even more ludicrous. Scanie had been Danish forever, literally, before forcibly ceded to Sweden in 1658. So Sweden should be regarded as under occupation because one newly conquered province, even if rich an populous one, which couldn't at the time be regarded as Swedish, held at gunpoint and through the use of terror tactics (eleven parishes down south in the 1990's still didn't want to use the 500 kronor bill, since it had Charles XI's portrait on it, on account of what he did to them) and where the locals welcomed the Danish troops as liberators, was occupied for a year in a failed attempt at reconquest? And territory certainly doesn't add up to 25%, and in fact not even the population, even if it's closer (about 130 000 out of 1.3 million, 10%).

The best claim for a foreign occupation of Sweden is in 1519-21, when the Union King Christian II temporarily asserted his dominion over the realm by force, mostly a German mercenary army. The problem with that situation was that according to the legal understanding of the matter at the time, he was the legal sovereign forced to reconquer this kingdom of his from local rebels, and the guy who eventually booted him out, Gustaf Eriksson Wasa I, was clearly an usurper, who certainly wouldn't get a hearing in Rome for his claim. Even the fighting is problematic, as Christian certainly enjoyed the active support of the yeomanry of a number of counties, and a retinue of loyal local Swedish nobles and ecclesiastical authorities. I.e. the claim of the entire sorry mess being a civil war fits nicely, seeing how Swedes were happy to have at each other after taking sides.

Before that things get lost in the mists of time and shoddy Scandi record keeping. But one theory is that Sweden in the 10th c. was created by the agents of the newly centralised kingdom of Denmark, and did in fact start out as a Danish province. Prior to that there isn't really a concept of Sweden as kingdom, but rather of a number of separate kingdoms, which is why the Swedish national coat of arms is still three crowns, on account of Sweden coming into being as the "United Kingdom of Östergötland, Västergötland and Uppland", and where the medieval kings of Sweden had in fact to get elected in all three separately. (Never mind the fact that his electorate felt entitled to kill the king, if he didn't uphold his end of the bargain, and on occasion followed through in that as well. The counties also had their traditional friendships and animosities and fought among themselves — the oldest medieval county legal codes at times specifies that it is permissible to just kill people from certain other counties outright with no fear of retribution from local law.)

So no, the political centre of Sweden, or the financial, administrative or population ones, have never been under foreign occupation as an effect of military conquest. The political situation until the end of the Great Nordic Union in 1523, unilaterally by the usurper Gustaf I Wasa, means there's room for interpretation, but no matter how confused things got, none of the union kings asserted their authority in Sweden without also having Swedish clients. Christian II got closest, since he was pretty independent of them in practice. Still had them though. As well as the recognition of the Papacy and the rest of the Crowned Heads of Europe as the legitimate sovereign of a rebellious kingdom, apart from the statutes of the Nordic Union itself.

 

[frekk]

I would dispute whether one can really classify the so-called Glorious Revolution as a "foreign occupation". It was essentially a coup, merely one which was oartially orchestrated by a foreign monarch, leading an army partially composed of foreign troops. At no point was Britain under what could be considered military occupation by the Dutch state; it was a faction of the English parliament, after all, which invited William and Mary to assume the throne, and which was in power after the coup. The most recent true occupation was that of 1066, during the Norman Conquest.

Well, I'd mainly agree that it doesn't count as foreign conquest.

However, it was hardly like the army was "partially" composed of foreign troops. The overwhelming majority were foreign. The Dutch sent 50 000 soldiers, and William and Mary had another 20 000 - but of the latter, only about a third were English, the rest were foreign mercenaries, mostly German. In all, around 85-90% of the soldiers were foreign.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Vietnam deserves a mention, also Venezuela, since independence in 1819 from Spain as Gran Colombia, it has survived 190 years intact. Gran Colombia was overwhelmingly Venezuelan dominated.

 

[North King]

A fairly useless question. How about, which country has been least touched by war? That would mean a hell of a lot more to any historian (or, you know, actual people) than an arbitrary "never occupied."

 

[innonimatu]

By this reckoning, the Germans never occupied France either. In fact, hardly anyone was ever occupied.

France surrendered to the germans...

 

[frekk]

France surrendered to the germans...

I'm not disputing that it did.

But whether you surrender or vow to fight on from exile (which France also did, after a manner), if your country is in enemy hands, it's occupied.

 

[aronnax]

The Korean War began in 1950.

And yes, I know that Japan was occupied in 1945. That's why my time frame for the record ends at 1945. 660 BC to 1945 AD.

So are you going to add Japan to the list or not? It is a very clear winner, by an enormous margin.

I began with the first Emperor of Japan. His dynasty has lasted to the present day as the sole royal family of Japan. I don't see why it doesn't qualify.

I admit, that a very very very very long record. But Im despite, the misleading-ness of the Topic title, Im talking about from now all the way to the time they were last occupied. So now is 2009, last time Japan occupied 1945. 64 years. Shame though.

Please, don't even try to credit the british with single-handedly winning the Peninsular War. The british did maintained a large army in the european territory of Portugal but by then the capital had been moved to Brazil, which was not occupied in any way. Even if you were to count the whole european territory as "occupied" (and it wasn't) it would be a tiny percentage, not anywhere near your criteria of 25%.

Hmm.. It seems I overestimated the penetration of the French into Portugal. That will set the date back to 1580 when Philip II invaded Portugal. So Portugal has a record of 429 Years

I would dispute whether one can really classify the so-called Glorious Revolution as a "foreign occupation". It was essentially a coup, merely one which was oartially orchestrated by a foreign monarch, leading an army partially composed of foreign troops. At no point was Britain under what could be considered military occupation by the Dutch state; it was a faction of the English parliament, after all, which invited William and Mary to assume the throne, and which was in power after the coup. The most recent true occupation was that of 1066, during the Norman Conquest.
Also, yes, the Jacobite insurrections were just that, and represented part of an ongoing civil war within Great Britain, rather than by any foreign power. Charles, despite his non-British upbringing, represented an Anglo-Scots family, and drew his support primarily from Scottish Jacobites.

The parliament didn't invite Mary and William, a few nobles on their own account did. When they landed, the English were like "Ooh! An opportunity" and defected. And William did threatened the Parliament that he would leave with his Army unless he was made King (not Prince-Consort as the Parliament wanted). A foreign head of State forcing himself on the throne sounds quite like a foreign occupation.

The Russian occupation of the north, while worrying (but the fear was mostly that next they would strike directly at Stockholm across from Finland), was pretty insignificant.......... independent of them in practice. Still had them though. As well as the recognition of the Papacy and the rest of the Crowned Heads of Europe as the legitimate sovereign of a rebellious kingdom, apart from the statutes of the Nordic Union itself.

Okay.... Then that would put Sweden on the never list. We might have a winner.

Vietnam deserves a mention, also Venezuela, since independence in 1819 from Spain as Gran Colombia, it has survived 190 years intact. Gran Colombia was overwhelmingly Venezuelan dominated.

Vietnam was invaded at least 15 times by China, and a 7 more times by France, Japan, USA, Siam and Khmer, the last one being in 1976. What mention? Wouldn't Venezuela be "freed" from Gran Colombian occupation in 1830. They had to fight a rebellion after all.

A fairly useless question. How about, which country has been least touched by war? That would mean a hell of a lot more to any historian (or, you know, actual people) than an arbitrary "never occupied."

Yes least touched by war sounds best...

 

[pi-r8]

Switzerland?

 

[aronnax]

Switzerland?

Well Currently, San Marino and Sweden are ahead of Swizterland

 

[RedRalph]

Iceland (barring the cod wars?) Ireland has had buckets of opression but very little conventional war

 

[REDY]

What about Ethiopia? It should be good candidate but I am too lazy eurocentric to confirm or disprove it.

 

[Camikaze]

Ethiopia (known as Abyssinia at the time, I believe) was occupied by Italy in 1936.