Which Country has spent the longest Time not under Occupation

[Verbose]

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".

At the time of the loss of Finland about 25% of the population was Swedish speaking, the entire social upper crust generally as well as several distinct geographical areas (some still are, though dwindling), and Finland had been the eastern half of the kingdom for some 600+ years. To Swedes in 1809 the duchy of Finland was very much an integral part of the kingdom.

When looking at the "disconnect" you are looking at the water in between Sweden and Finland. Well, historically that's "connect", since travel by water was historically multiple times more uncomplicated than travel by land in Sweden. Looking at historical "ease-of-travel" Finland was de facto easier to get to from central Sweden than the counties south of the dividing forest of Tiveden, which literally cut the country in half, and marked the dividing line between the original kingdom of the "Svear" to the north, and the two kingdoms of the "Götar" to the south. Above and below the Forest to Swedes was historically more distant than the short hop by boat to Finland.

The problematic and dangerous border was historically always the land border with Denmark in the extreme south, that is until the border change in 1658, even if the conquered new southern counties were occasionally fought over until the Great Nordic war in the early 18th c. (at least two serious Danish attempts at reconquest). Denmark was the obvious arch-rival, and the 17th c. wars were extremely bitter and brutal affairs.

Sweden in 1561, first real conquest, Estonia (lasting until 1721):

Sweden waxing and waning in historical maps:
http://images.google.se/imgres?imgu...org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&sa=N&start=18&um=1

 

[Quildavyr]

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.

Nope I am not being a pan-Turanist.I was talking just politically correct,because people of modern Turkish state arent considered as European,but kinda invaders in Anatolia.(Obviously not that much outsider,we belong still to planet earth)I just shortly explained,why Turkey or turkish people cant be labelled as the longest time spender not under Occupation.

Göktürk Khanate was turkish by the way,not turkic.

 

[Dachs]

Nope I am not being a pan-Turanist.I was talking just politically correct,because people of modern Turkish state arent considered as European,but kinda invaders in Anatolia.(Obviously not that much outsider,we belong still to planet earth)I just shortly explained,why Turkey or turkish people cant be labelled as the longest time spender not under Occupation.

Going by aronnax's weirdo rules, 1919-21 qualifies.

Göktürk Khanate was turkish by the way,not turkic.

It is a gross simplification of the nature of the qaghanate's confederal nature to attempt to claim that the people generally accepted as today's Turkish persons were its sole or even primary members.

 

[Quildavyr]

It is a gross simplification of the nature of the qaghanate's confederal nature to attempt to claim that the people generally accepted as today's Turkish persons were its sole or even primary members.

Not sole,but primary yes.Like every other turkish state.(except Ottomans maybe).

This isnt about the topic anyway,I am walking away

 

[Reno]

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.

You are thinking of the wrong war, the king of Sweden was not killed in the Finnish War but dethroned, yet even then the new king continued the war. You were thinking of the Great Northern War (1700-21) when Charles the king of Sweden was killed during his campaign in Norway in 1718, yet it was not due to this that Sweden seceded the territories to Russia even in that war.

I also second Verbose's query as to your claim on just how Sweden didn't lose the Finnish War?

 

[aronnax]

Going by aronnax's weirdo rules, 1919-21 qualifies.

Being Arbitrary is fun!!

But rather than have a set rules of what and what rather than people throw ridiculous suggestion and we spent all the time arguing what rules to define an occupation while new post comers who dont read the thread, or at least the last two pages say something like "Netherlands was never occupied, there is still the Dutch Guyana."

 

[NKVD]

I also second Verbose's query as to your claim on just how Sweden didn't lose the Finnish War?

i meant that they didnt get occupied by russian troops. more like russia didnt get ''occupied'' by germans in WWI. because i was refering to the first post of this thread . yeah i know they lost and signed a treaty...