Which country was never a colony or under foreign rule in its entire history?

[Flying Pig]

One tribe replacing another isn't a reasonable definition of foreign rule.

Well, what is, then? After all, we're not talking about 'replacing' in any greater sense than we talk about the Romans 'replacing' the Britons, or the Normans 'replacing' the Saxons.

I don't think that should count. I mean, what did the Ottomans actually do there? How was their presence felt?

A good question, but one which makes an awful lot of world empires look a bit notional - which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, what is, then? After all, we're not talking about 'replacing' in any greater sense than we talk about the Romans 'replacing' the Britons, or the Normans 'replacing' the Saxons.

Ara you kidding? They spoke the same language, dressed the same way, had the same customs (religious and otherwise)... being under 'foreign' rule isn't an applicable concept to clans that would have been nearly indistinguishable.

 

[r16]

Central Arabia

ı would challenge that with many punititative columns . Do not let Saudi propaganda to mislead history .

 

[Mouthwash]

ı would challenge that with many punititative columns . Do not let Saudi propaganda to mislead history .

...bring on the "punititative columns," if you must.

 

[r16]

the very word Empty Quarters on the map clearly implies those were hard areas to live but let's say the prime income of a certain dynasty was robbing the Pilgrims to Mekke . Once they killed an entire caravan of 20 000 people . Where would they run to , because there comes a moment that can not be ignored . Those would be invasions , right ?

 

[Mouthwash]

the very word Empty Quarters on the map clearly implies those were hard areas to live but let's say the prime income of a certain dynasty was robbing the Pilgrims to Mekke . Once they killed an entire caravan of 20 000 people . Where would they run to , because there comes a moment that can not be ignored . Those would be invasions , right ?

Was central Arabia ever under Qarmatian rule, though? Did they extract taxes or recruit soldiers? A few raids doesn't make it a province.

 

[r16]

just a generalization about the sandy wastes of Central Arabia ...

 

[Flying Pig]

Ara you kidding? They spoke the same language, dressed the same way, had the same customs (religious and otherwise)... being under 'foreign' rule isn't an applicable concept to clans that would have been nearly indistinguishable.

I think whether two groups are 'indistinguishable' depends on your perspective. The question is surely whether people make enough of the differences to consider themselves separate groups, rather than what the differences are in an objective sense. After all, if the US invaded Toronto, people would certainly think of that as a foreign occupation: I know that they did when British soldiers were sent to Londonderry, and we had all of those things in common with the Irish.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that Athens viewed occupation by Sparta as occupation, not continuing the Athenian state

 

[Mouthwash]

I think whether two groups are 'indistinguishable' depends on your perspective. The question is surely whether people make enough of the differences to consider themselves separate groups, rather than what the differences are in an objective sense. After all, if the US invaded Toronto, people would certainly think of that as a foreign occupation: I know that they did when British soldiers were sent to Londonderry, and we had all of those things in common with the Irish.

But the thread seems to be defining 'foreign rule' in modern terms. What's the point of it otherwise?

 

[Flying Pig]

Usually, I think it's best to try to understand the past in terms that would have made sense to people at the time. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to understand what people thought and did, because you assume that they had a basically modern way of thinking.

 

[Mouthwash]

Usually, I think it's best to try to understand the past in terms that would have made sense to people at the time. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to understand what people thought and did, because you assume that they had a basically modern way of thinking.

But we're not really trying to do that here. It's more of an exercise, finding areas that were never ruled by non-natives.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but to do that you need a definition of 'native'. Birmingham nowadays is ruled by people who aren't native to Birmingham, but that's not seen as the same thing as Paris being ruled by people who aren't native to France. To my mind, the only sensible way forward is to ask what people at the time would have seen as 'native' versus 'foreign' rule, and that means that, as Kyriakos said, the occupation of Athens by Sparta in 404 BC becomes a foreign invasion, even though people living in Athens today would probably not regard people living in Sparta today as foreigners.

 

[Leifmk]

Why would anyone want to migrate to Iceland in those times? It is in the middle of nothing. Cold likely is even worse than in Norway.

'Twas colonized by a bunch of people who were kicked out of Viking-age Norway for being difficult to get along with. Think for a minute on what that means. (And your probable conclusions are supported by the primary historical source materials we have from those days. Killing and feuding and arson and more killing and revenge for the other dudes' revenge...)

Then Greenland was colonized by some people who were kicked of out Iceland for being ornery bastards. Finally the attempt at colonizing Vinland was made by some dudes who were too antisocial for Greenland. No wonder they didn't get along with the natives they met there...

 

[Kyriakos]

^LOL, best of the best reached America. As usual

 

[God of Kings]

Yep. Even the most ruthless of all Vikings had moral standards and Vikings aren't exactly known for their peaceful ways.

 

[Mouthwash]

'Twas colonized by a bunch of people who were kicked out of Viking-age Norway for being difficult to get along with. Think for a minute on what that means. (And your probable conclusions are supported by the primary historical source materials we have from those days. Killing and feuding and arson and more killing and revenge for the other dudes' revenge...)

Why do countries like Iceland and Australia have such peaceful societies despite being settled by unsavory cross-sections of the population? Appalachia is supposedly violent due to having a high percentage of Scots-Irish.

Then Greenland was colonized by some people who were kicked of out Iceland for being ornery bastards.

Any country whose population wouldn't fill up an Olympic stadium was never 'colonized' so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Leifmk]

Why do countries like Iceland and Australia have such peaceful societies despite being settled by unsavory cross-sections of the population? Appalachia is supposedly violent due to having a high percentage of Scots-Irish.



Any country whose population wouldn't fill up an Olympic stadium was never 'colonized' so far as I'm concerned.

Well, they colonized the small bits of it that they could farm.

As for Iceland, I guess for the most part they just burned out their aggression after enough generations of feuding and crap. Much the same as Norway, really. This feud, that feud, the other feud, a civil war or two, and then the Black Death putting an end to a lot of the ruling classes and making all the previous fighting look rather pointless... even so, daily society remained pretty violent well into the early modern era.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, they colonized the small bits of it that they could farm.

As for Iceland, I guess for the most part they just burned out their aggression after enough generations of feuding and crap. Much the same as Norway, really. This feud, that feud, the other feud, a civil war or two, and then the Black Death putting an end to a lot of the ruling classes and making all the previous fighting look rather pointless... even so, daily society remained pretty violent well into the early modern era.

I was reading some biographical notes on Abel, the most famous norwegian mathematician, and i saw that (at around 1900? or a little prior to that) Abel's fellow elementary school pupil was accidentally beaten to death by their school-teacher...
Talk about hardcore

 

[Leifmk]

I was reading some biographical notes on Abel, the most famous norwegian mathematician, and i saw that (at around 1900? or a little prior to that) Abel's fellow elementary school pupil was accidentally beaten to death by their school-teacher...
Talk about hardcore

Abel died in 1829, so that must have happened a good bit earlier than 1900.