Geopolitically How Old is the U.S.A. compared to the rest of the world?

It is often talked about how "young" the U.S. is as a nation when historians talk about human civilization. They often cite cultures that have been around for thousands of years such as the Egyptians or Chinese. However, geopolitically speaking i can only think of four countries that have lasted longer uninterrupted from founding to present. These nations that are "older" then the U.S. are Bhutan, The U.K., Oman, and Thailand. I only list the ones that have not been conquered or occupied by a foreign or greater power since founding. Disputedly one could make the case for six others- Portugal (conquered by Napoleon so had to move government to Brazil in 1807), Sweden (part of Sweden-Norway until 1905), Afghanistan (unless you count U.S. occupation), China (only if you don't count Manchurian as a "foreign" power), Nepal (unless you count suzerainty to Qing China), and Iran (unless you don't count occupation of much of the country and the rest as a puppet state when the British and Soviets took control during WW2). There are 195 countries today if your going by the U.S. state department's count. The U.S. is undisputedly geopolitically older then 184 of them or disputedly older then 190 of them. So isn't the U.S. a very old country?

That's an interesting way of thinking about it. Let me ask you this: from when are you starting the U.K.'s history?

Yes it is

When you consider history as events occurring in the area, the USA is without a doubt much younger than many other countries in the world, being an independent nation for only about 250 years and even including when it was a colony and therefore a non-tribal government that was only another 200, which is nothing compared to the medieval kingdoms in Europe and the ancient civilizations in Egypt and China.

If we talk about the foundation of their modern government, then yes the US is one of the oldest ones, mostly because a ton of countries changed from a monarchy to a republic or were originally an European colony who become independent post-WW2

Cold War Communist wrote:That's an interesting way of thinking about it. Let me ask you this: from when are you starting the U.K.'s history?

I would say 1707 when the Act of the Union made it so that there was no longer an independant England and Scotland as they were united into a single kingdom, hence the name "United Kingdom." I could also see the arguments made for 1066 A.D. as that was the last time a foreign people conquered England, as  England is really the predecessor state to the U.K. since that is where the capital and majority of the population live. Going back even further some might say 927 A.D. since that was the first year there was a "Kingdom of England." This would be true if you equate the Normans to England what the Manchurians were to China as they both conquered their respective countries and ruled them as if they were a successive dynasty of an already established country as opposed to overlords from a foreign land. So if you go by 927 A.D. then China to be fair would also have to move up from my "disputed" list to "undisputed" list. Even earlier some still might go back as far as the 800s A.D. with Alfred the Great. Alfred was king of Wessex, which was the predecessor state to England as Alfred was the first to unite the anglo-saxon people against the invading vikings so became the first King of the Anglo-Saxons. However i would still personally mark 1707, as that is the year that the United Kingdom was born. Regardless if you mark 1707, 1066, 927, or even 800s, all of these dates are still earlier then the U.S. independence of 1776 (declared) or 1783 (last British troops leave), which ever of the two your marking as the year the U.S. became independant.

Mr Trolldemort wrote:When you consider history as events occurring in the area, the USA is without a doubt much younger than many other countries in the world, being an independent nation for only about 250 years and even including when it was a colony and therefore a non-tribal government that was only another 200, which is nothing compared to the medieval kingdoms in Europe and the ancient civilizations in Egypt and China.  

If we talk about the foundation of their modern government, then yes the US is one of the oldest ones, mostly because a ton of countries changed from a monarchy to a republic or were originally an European colony who become independent post-WW2

Much of that is true, culturally the U.S. is very young, however i'm looking at it strictly from a geopolitical view. With that being said i would be hesitant to label a country that has transformed its style of government as a new country. For example Portugal went from monarchy to republic in 1910, but few would declare that the year that Portugal became an independant country, its just when they changed their style of government. Same is true for Mexico, as the date they use as becoming an independant country was 1810 when they gained their independence from Spain, not when they transitioned from empire to republic in 1824/1867. The list goes on, Cuba has continuously been independant since 1902 when they broke from Spain/United States. 1959 however is not considered the year Cuba became independant, only the year that they went from a democracy to a communist state. The only problem i have however with my argument is then what to do with the Soviet Union. Would you say the Soviet Union was a different country then pre 1922 Russia since the borders, ideology, government, and ethnic make up completely changed? I might argue that the Soviet Union was a geopolitical anomaly and possibly consider them as an all together different country then a continuation of Russia. The U.S.S.R.'s rare anomaly might also be evidential with Yugoslavia. However i don't claim to have all the answers, which is why i posted this topic to begin with, along with the fact that i find it interesting to discuss geopolitical history.

Interesting side note, the four countries that i listed as undisputedly older then the U.S. (Bhutan, U.K., Thailand, and Oman) are all monarchies in various forms.

Why do you not make the case for France as an older nation?

Cold War Communist wrote:Why do you not make the case for France as an older nation?

The countries that i listed were founded before the U.S. and have maintained their independence uninterrupted to present day. France was conquered by the Germans during WW2, so the current France as an independant state can only be traced back to 1944 when it was liberated by the Allies.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:Why do you not make the case for France as an older nation?

The countries that i listed were founded before the U.S. and have maintained their independence uninterrupted to present day. France was conquered by the Germans during WW2, so the current France as an independant state can only be traced back to 1944 when it was liberated by the Allies.

I see, but it didn't cease to be France at that moment or for that time, it just existed differently. At least, this is how I'm looking at it. I would still call France younger according to your metric, but I wouldn't say it's more than a few years, as my French birthday would be around the time of the revolution/the end of revolutionary France and the establishment of a French Republic.

Cold War Communist wrote:

ceaserkhan22 wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:Why do you not make the case for France as an older nation?

The countries that i listed were founded before the U.S. and have maintained their independence uninterrupted to present day. France was conquered by the Germans during WW2, so the current France as an independant state can only be traced back to 1944 when it was liberated by the Allies.

I see, but it didn't cease to be France at that moment or for that time, it just existed differently. At least, this is how I'm looking at it. I would still call France younger according to your metric, but I wouldn't say it's more than a few years, as my French birthday would be around the time of the revolution/the end of revolutionary France and the establishment of a French Republic.

Right, just like how Scotland didn't cease to be Scotland when they became part of the U.K., but that doesn't make them an independant country. Scotland is ultimately ruled from London. The same is true with 1940-1944 France as it was ruled by Germany, which was a foreign geopolitical power.

If you are alluding to bastille day as France's birthday, i would ask wasn't France an independant country when it was a kingdom long before then? Also the French Republic brought about by the French revolution isn't the French Republic that it is today. Since its revolution, France has gone back to monarchy, empire, and republic again several times. In fact the current France is its fifth try at a republic. However in my opinion all of these changes in government are just that, changes in style of government. France does not become a new country every time it changes its government. If France was not conquered by the NAZIs it would have easily been one of the oldest as it continually existed independently from 888 to 1940.

That raises more questions for me. What is the point at which you distinguish between the German military occupation from 1940-44 and the Prussian occupation following the Franco-Prussian War?

Cold War Communist wrote:That raises more questions for me. What is the point at which you distinguish between the German military occupation from 1940-44 and the Prussian occupation following the Franco-Prussian War?

The Prussians only occupied part of northern France, and Paris for literally only three days. Taking the capital does not necessarily mean you've taken the country. For example the British didn't conquer the U.S. in 1814 when they took Washington D.C. The Prussians didn't conquer France, they only forced an armistice on the French in their favor. It was a similar result to Mexico's defeat in the Mexican-American war. When the U.S. captured Mexico City they were not there to conquer Mexico, only to force a favorable treaty. The Germans during WW2 on the other hand conquered all of France by militarily occupying the north and setting up a puppet government in the south, effectively submitting the entire country to NAZI rule.

Also, another country you missed who's current government is older than the USA is Sweden (gained independence from Denmark in 1523, hasn't been occupied since and remains a monarchy)

I ask because while the territory was occupied for four years by the Nazis, the government was all that changed. That doesn't make it any less geopolitically French. It is also inconsistent with your statement about how the "government" of Revolutionary France was "all that changed", thus maintaining geopolitical continuity up to Nazi occupation.

Mr Trolldemort wrote:Also, another country you missed who's current government is older than the USA is Sweden (gained independence from Denmark in 1523, hasn't been occupied since and remains a monarchy)

Sweden is mentioned in my opening post. I listed four undisputedly older countries than the U.S. (Bhutan, Oman, U.K., Thailand) and six disputedly older countries than the U.S. (Sweden, China, Afghanistan, Nepal, Portugal, and Iran.)

ceaserkhan22 wrote:

Mr Trolldemort wrote:Also, another country you missed who's current government is older than the USA is Sweden (gained independence from Denmark in 1523, hasn't been occupied since and remains a monarchy)

Sweden is mentioned in my opening post. I listed four undisputedly older countries than the U.S. (Bhutan, Oman, U.K., Thailand) and six disputed older countries than the U.S. (Sweden, China, Afghanistan, Nepal, Portugal, and Iran.)

Oh, sorry didn't see that. I wouldn't say Sweden should be disputed, because even though it was officially Sweden-Norway, Sweden was the dominant partner in the union and it was closer to an occupation of Norway than a completely different country.

The Sweden-Norway issue is tough. I agree with you but i think it may also go into the Soviet Union/Yugoslavia category. The claim could possibly be made that the Soviet Union was a new country altogether from pre 1922 Russia, as opposed to only becoming the same country with a different kind of government since so much of its identity changed from 1917-1922. That is why i included in my opening post a country being taken by a foreign or "greater" power since the country's founding in the criteria. The Soviet Union was obviously not a foreign power to Russia, but it was a more encompassing "greater" power to it. Not to mention it was a foreign power to many of the surrounding states that the U.S.S.R. swallowed up in its transformation process, but then again kingdoms become empires all the time in history without becoming 'new" countries so the case could be made either way on that point.

So to the point of how that relates to Sweden it may have also been a greater power shrinking from Sweden-Norway to a new country of just Sweden as was the case when the Soviet Union went back to just being Russia and arguably a new country again. Also ask yourself this, if Scotland went ahead with the referendum in 2014, wouldn't that have ended the United Kingdom as a country since Scotland and England would become their own independant countries again just like how Norway and Sweden did?

I was tempted to originally put Sweden on the undisputed list, but i figured someone would call me out on it either way so i decided on the disputed list as for the reasons above. But since its on the disputed list i welcome all arguments for and against otherwise i would have put it as undisputed.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:The Sweden-Norway issue is tough. I agree with you but i think it may also go into the Soviet Union/Yugoslavia category. The claim could possibly be made that the Soviet Union was a new country altogether from pre 1922 Russia, as opposed to only becoming the same country with a different kind of government since so much of its identity changed from 1917-1922. That is why i included in my opening post a country being taken by a foreign or "greater" power since the country's founding in the criteria. The Soviet Union was obviously not a foreign power to Russia, but it was a more encompassing "greater" power to it. Not to mention it was a foreign power to many of the surrounding states that the U.S.S.R. swallowed up in its transformation process, but then again kingdoms become empires all the time in history without becoming 'new" countries so the case could be made either way on that point.

So to the point of how that relates to Sweden it may have also been a greater power shrinking from Sweden-Norway to a new country of just Sweden as was the case when the Soviet Union went back to just being Russia and arguably a new country again. Also ask yourself this, if Scotland went ahead with the referendum in 2014, wouldn't that have ended the United Kingdom as a country since Scotland and England would become their own independant countries again just like how Norway and Sweden did?

I was tempted to originally put Sweden on the undisputed list, but i figured someone would call me out on it either way so i decided on the disputed list as for the reasons above. But since its on the disputed list i welcome all arguments for and against otherwise i would have put it as undisputed.

Fair enough. Personally, I would still consider the UK to still exist had Scotland become independent. As long as they don't change their official name and government, it would just be that the United Kingdom now only includes England, Whales and Northern Ireland. The same could be said for the Swedish-Norway Union, except now it would just be Sweden. The difference between that and the USSR/Russia change is that the Russia changed from a soviet socialist republic to a ordinary federation and was officially dissolved, which mean that government no longer exists. The same could be said for all the French Republic, as each new one made a completely new constitution dissolving the previous government.

Right, i get the dissolved government argument but that brings me back to the point i was making with the French revolution. I personally argue that a new government doesn't make a new country such as the Cuba or France example iv'e used along with several others. I would mainly define the founding of a country as when a new country is formed through independence from another country like when the U.S. broke from the U.K. or in some instances when two or more states join together to become a new country such as when Castile and Aragon joined to become Spain (excluding of course ancient kingdoms that were the original state on the land they ruled and had no one to separate from, but no country existing today has a founding from that far back with uninterrupted self rule so it is irrelevant to this discussion). Changes in governments happen all the time, revolutions prevail and constitutions change, but you never hear of Britain's independence occurring when the Magna Carta fundamentally changed the governmental system of Britain, nor would anyone say Britain was founded only after Cromwell's Commonwealth was restored to a monarchy, which was basically the same thing as dissolving the government.

^^ That is the issue I am seeing with this theory. France has continually existed, even through German occupation, it was just administered differently.

Cold War Communist wrote:^^ That is the issue I am seeing with this theory. France has continually existed, even through German occupation, it was just administered differently.

Existed and independant are two different things. Tibet exists but its occupied by China, its not independant.

ceaserkhan22 wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:^^ That is the issue I am seeing with this theory. France has continually existed, even through German occupation, it was just administered differently.

Existed and independant are two different things. Tibet exists but its occupied by China, its not independant.

But existence is the only thing relevant to this topic, because we're discussing the age of nationstates relative to the U.S. Tibet is another good example of an ancient place that far outlives the U.S. in the realm of geopolitics..

Existing vs being independant matters. You can make your case that culturally France has continually existed in the time frame that you gave, but geopolitically it has not lasted longer than the U.S. from founding to present as an independant sovereign country. Tibet is not a nation state, it is an autonomous region within China. Yes Tibet has an older culture then the U.S., but its not an independant country even today, which is the point i was making. To define the terms i'm not talking about the age of the culture, i'm talking about the age of the independant polity.

Cold War Communist wrote:

ceaserkhan22 wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:^^ That is the issue I am seeing with this theory. France has continually existed, even through German occupation, it was just administered differently.

Existed and independant are two different things. Tibet exists but its occupied by China, its not independant.

But existence is the only thing relevant to this topic, because we're discussing the age of nationstates relative to the U.S. Tibet is another good example of an ancient place that far outlives the U.S. in the realm of geopolitics..

Are we talking about Nationstates or just Governments? Because you can claim the ancient Greeks are the same people as the modern Greeks, so then Greece could be one of the oldest countries. We are talking about governments, specifically, unoccupied and independent governments. France has switched between Empire and Republic many times since the revolution, and then it was occupied by the Germans. Britain and the US have maintained a consistent government since Cromwell and the Constitution respectively.