Which Country has spent the longest Time not under Occupation

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.

See, that is very unclear, both in the OP and Thread Title. Its a different question entirely.
 
Plus Ethiopia was full of feudal strife for hundreds of years. Iceland seems like a good candidate. Andorra and Switzerland have been pretty chill except for the Napoleonic Wars. I don't know enough about the Himalayan states to really comment, but they seem like they might be decent candidates.
 
Scotland (since it gave over to the UK voluntarily) has never been ooccupied

I'm no expert on the Medieval period but I'm pretty sure that the English occupied Scotland at least twice in the space of half a century. After all, its rather hard to fight two wars of independence if you have no foreign occupying power to fight against...
 
I'm no expert on the Medieval period but I'm pretty sure that the English occupied Scotland at least twice in the space of half a century. After all, its rather hard to fight two wars of independence if you have no foreign occupying power to fight against...
Yes, but all kinds of calls about national freedom and unity are tricky for the Medieval period. The whole idea of countries tend not to work quite as "supposed" before the early modern period at least.
 
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.p

Occupation is different from Invasion. The op said longest time not under occupation, not longest time still not under occupation. The time between the 20th century and the last time it got 'occupied' i mean.

As for Venezuela, ounce Simon Bolivar's dream of a united northern Latin america faded away in the dreams of the populous, people realized that Venezuela would be better off alone rather than sharing it's vast wealth with the much poorer regions to the west and south. If Gran Colombia continued than there would be a huge difference in range of resources between Venezuela and Colombia/rest of the countries. I think being smaller was better and the people realized that. There must of been some people against that. Perhaps the dumber more nationalist ones who still dreamed Bolivar's dream, which could be the reason of the rebellion.

Gran Colombia was Venezuelan dominated, it was more like a big country ditching it's territories for the greater good. Venezuela is pretty much a continuation of Gran Colombia, but in a new name.
 
Verbose:

That may well be true but unless you allow some degree of latitude with regards the use of "country" any discussion of this type is pointless since it degenerates into pedantic arguments of how an invasion didn't count because it was a different country back then.

To my mind as long as the example of occupation comes from a time when the country was reasonably similar in geographical area to its modern equivalent or had a strong degree of identification with the modern country it can be used. I wouldn't for example use the Antonine Wall as an example of how Scotland was occupied since "Scotland" didn't exist in any meaningful sense at the time. You could argue that the USA was invaded in the war of 1812 though because although it did not control all 50 states at the time the USA of 1812 can be reasonably linked to the modern country bearing that name.

By the time of the Wars of Independence a recognisable Scottish kingdom existed, and although it did not cover all of the modern day country it did cover most of it.

I'm not sure using Scotland or England for that matter as a separate example is wise though due to it currently being part of the United Kingdom. If it is going to be used though its wildly inaccurate to say Scotland has never been occupied.
 
The op said longest time not under occupation, not longest time still not under occupation.

It is a bit misleading, but I believe this:
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)
is supposed to indicate that.
And the previous discussion about Japan makes it clear that he is only accepting current runs.
 
I think Bhutan has a pretty solid argument that it hasn't been occupied for something like 360 years.
 
Occupation is different from Invasion. The op said longest time not under occupation, not longest time still not under occupation. The time between the 20th century and the last time it got 'occupied' i mean.

Alright, my mistake, I should have added Occupied by the Americans, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese of the Ming, Tang, Han and possibly more Dynasties and the Khmer.

As for Venezuela, ounce Simon Bolivar's dream of a united northern Latin america faded away in the dreams of the populous, people realized that Venezuela would be better off alone rather than sharing it's vast wealth with the much poorer regions to the west and south. If Gran Colombia continued than there would be a huge difference in range of resources between Venezuela and Colombia/rest of the countries. I think being smaller was better and the people realized that. There must of been some people against that. Perhaps the dumber more nationalist ones who still dreamed Bolivar's dream, which could be the reason of the rebellion.

Gran Colombia was Venezuelan dominated, it was more like a big country ditching it's territories for the greater good. Venezuela is pretty much a continuation of Gran Colombia, but in a new name.

Okay, if Venezuela ditched Gran Colombia, then exactly what year was it of Gran Colombian/Venezuela independence? Wiki gives me a very vague idea with three independence dates and two crushing by Spain and both a Venezuelan and Gran Colombian Independence before 1830.
 
I think Bhutan has a pretty solid argument that it hasn't been occupied for something like 360 years.

What about being a protectorate of Britain? I know that protectorates does not mean annexation or occupation, but Malaya, Brunei and various western African lands were Protectorates and dominated by British Rule in its politics. Though I am unsure whether or not the invisible but very large hands of Britain were in Bhutan as they were in its other Protectorate.
 
Okay, if Venezuela ditched Gran Colombia, then exactly what year was it of Gran Colombian/Venezuela independence? Wiki gives me a very vague idea with three independence dates and two crushing by Spain and both a Venezuelan and Gran Colombian Independence before 1830.

What do you mean? the date when the union ended was 1831, but it collapsed in 1830.
 
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.
That evaluation is rather simplistic. Aside from the fact that he was legally offered the throne as the spouse of a legitimate claimant, who also reigned as monarch, the Glorious Revolution, in itself, represented the final shift of the Kingdom of England towards constitutional monarchy and the last of Stuart absolutism. It'd be an odd foreign occupation, after all, which presided over the transfer of power to a native parliament.
 

First republic was a 'rebel' state kinda with the people declaring indepence.

Second Republic was also a 'rebel' kinda state, but this time with Simon Bolivar declaring independence.

After that it is Gran Colombia, than Venezuela again.

It's like lets say Vikings - Sweden - Kalmar Union - Sweden kinda thing.

Actually that example makes sense, as Sweden also didn't want the union and getting rid of it would've been for Sweden's greater good at the time.

Venezuela's equivalent would be:

Spain/New Grenada - Venezuela - Gran Colombia - Venezuela.
 
What about being a protectorate of Britain? I know that protectorates does not mean annexation or occupation, but Malaya, Brunei and various western African lands were Protectorates and dominated by British Rule in its politics. Though I am unsure whether or not the invisible but very large hands of Britain were in Bhutan as they were in its other Protectorate.

They had a lot of influence on its foreign affairs, not much in domestic. I'd say they had more influence in Nepal, and it's debatable whether Nepal was ever occupied. Although, since Nepal wasn't united until 1768, it's a younger nation than Bhutan.
 
Back
Top Bottom