Maybe he's being a pan-Turanist and conflating the modern Turkish state with Turkic peoples in Central Asia, including the Göktürk Khanate, which was invaded by the Tang.
Which Country has spent the longest Time not under Occupation
- Thread starter aronnax
- Start date
This is a cover-up!!Attacked, possibly pillaged, possibly ransomed, perhaps, but neither occupied or destroyed, at least going by the archaeological evidence.
Verbose
Deity
Well, apparently there's a helluva lot riding on these events of 1187 for a number of nations around the Baltic.This is a cover-up!!
So lets, be Salomonic about it:
Of course Sigtuna was burnt by a coalition of Estonian, Karelian and Kurland pagan pirates, possibly taking turns in the fire-setting, as well as the representatives of any other assorted nations along the east and south coast of the Baltic who feel called upon to stake a claim on this reputed conflagration.
Like this it's actually only problematic for the Estonians, who at the time afaik were good Christians already.
Edit:
Om a serious note:
The reason so much has been done by the throwaway line about pagans burning Sigtuna in 1187 (and "pagans" here might, at least theoretically, even refer even to die-hard local, Swedish, pagans) in a number of posterior Swedish medieval chronicles has to do with how 19th c. nationalist politics worked.
If the Estonians, or Finns, or someone else, could claim that in 1187 they had the organisation and capability to launch a successful attack on the very heart of the kingdom of Sweden, at the time jockeying for position with Denmark for the position of Top Dog in the Baltic, by the count of 19th c. nationalist politics that would be a serious factor in favour of a claim of national independence. Because the nations with something riding on having attacked Sigtuna in 1187 were precisely such nations that at the time were under foreign, Russian, domination.
NKVD
Cossack
i dont know why you still list the debatable ones on the first page . USA is far from being a winner, russia as been ''conquered'' by Napoleon , at the first world war and second world war. I mean when you get your capital burned down you clearly lost a war. even though the attackers have to get out of the country and march 2000 km in winter.
wiki says also sweden lost finland to russian in 1809
also there are not one discussion about south africans countries...maybe there is one old country there
wiki says also sweden lost finland to russian in 1809
also there are not one discussion about south africans countries...maybe there is one old country there
That's because all of Africa was colonised at some point
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Sweden lost Finland but it never lost Sweden. I mean if I conquered British India, did I conquer India? Or Britain? So the rule here is that it applies to the modern day national borders. That would give Sweden a Never.
Verbose
Deity
Yup. If one by Arronax' terms considers Finland an integral part of Sweden, which historically it was, then the loss of Finland in 1809 has Sweden as "conquered".
However as the rules seem to be applied, the existence of the modern nation state of Finland puts it outside the frame of what's supposedly Swedish territory proper.
Not that anyone any longer is really seriously miffed about Finland. It probably saved Sweden from a bad 19th c. nationalist break-up anyway, and as the romantic poet Esaias Tegnér put it shortly after 1809 the task was "to within the borders of the realm, reconquer Finland", which was felt to be done through industrialisation and other forms of reform and development by 19th c. Swedes.
Otherwise, historically, at the time the loss of Finland amounted to the loss of more than a third of the territory and population of the kingdom of Sweden.
Easter Island? Or does that not count?
Verbose
Deity
These days it belongs to Chile, if I'm not mistaken.
San Marino was occupied by the Germans and later by the Allies for a few weeks in 1944. The mini-nation had a Fascist government during the Mussolini era and, despite being neutral in WWII, German troops occupied the state for transit use August-September 1944. The Germans lost to the Allies in the battle of San Marino 18 Sept, leading to Allied occupation lasting until October.
So for the record, San Marino has not been occupied for almost 65 years.
So for the record, San Marino has not been occupied for almost 65 years.
In that case none of the occupations of San Marino counts and it is a clear winner. The 1739 occupation lasted from 18 Oct 1739 to 5 Feb 1740, i.e. less than 6 months.
I am well aware of this, I was just trying to poke fun.
We poor buggers need to look half a millennia further into history in search of our great military victories than Swedes. Another reason is, of course, that all these poor writers who have tried writing historical novels about local "Viking-age" have basically no other "historical" events to place their stories or sub-stories around, as there is very few written records about the "pagans" around the Baltic.Actually no. The Baltic Crusades really started with founding of Riga in 1201 and from there it took about 30 years of fighting until Estonia was finally subdued and at least nominally baptized. There may have been a chapel or two for foreign merchants at trading posts here, but the population was still most assuredly pagan.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It depends on what you constitute as being the "homeland." Algeria was a French Department, so was it a part of the French homeland, as it wasn't a colony? How about the American Southwest? Your definition of things is growing increasingly arbitrary.
Weik
Warlord
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nepal:
Nepal is one of the only countries which has been independent throughout its history, never conquered, occupied, or governed by an outside power. Although there has been speculation that it was under the Maurya Empire in the 3rd century BCE or the Tibetan Empire in the 7th or 8th century CE, firm evidence is lacking. From the time historical records are clear, Nepal has continuously and successfully defended its sovereignty.
So, should Nepal be filed under '1768', when they became unified, or 'never'?
Nepal is one of the only countries which has been independent throughout its history, never conquered, occupied, or governed by an outside power. Although there has been speculation that it was under the Maurya Empire in the 3rd century BCE or the Tibetan Empire in the 7th or 8th century CE, firm evidence is lacking. From the time historical records are clear, Nepal has continuously and successfully defended its sovereignty.
So, should Nepal be filed under '1768', when they became unified, or 'never'?
NKVD
Cossack
exactly. even more Finland was conquered by sweden from 1249 to 1809 . even more finland was part of their homeland and touching, connected, side by side. it was not a colony 1000 km away. still they ceded it without really losing a war, they just wanted peace after their king died so they gave it to russia.
so i guess its between Portugal and Sweden anyway as the longest time without occupation
Was controlled by Qing China for two centuries before it declared independence in the middle of the Xinhai Revolution, in 1911.
NKVD
Cossack
yeah i forgot that time...thats why i edit my post but you were quick right there!!
as for nepal...i mean they have not been conquered just because nobody wants that part of land, just like the tribes living alone in the jungles if you ask me
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In all fairness, the only border they shared is a fairly remote one way up north, where no-one really lives, let alone lived, except for the Sami. Half of it's in the mountains, for a start. The heartland of Finland is far enough south that Sweden may as well be an island from it's perspective. After all, Ireland, a handy comparison, was not a "colony 1,000 miles aways" from the UK, but it was hardly part of what would really be considered the English "homeland". The Irish War of Independence didn't have quite the same effect as, say, Dorest declaring independence would've done, and so I find it hard to believe that the loss of Finland, a geographically disconnected and ethnically distinct nation, constitutes a loss of any part of the Swedish "homeland".
Verbose
Deity
Would you mind explaining in what way Sweden did not lose the war of 1808-1809? It's a very weird assertion.
Similar threads
