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

I am operating with the understanding that this is about geopolitics, in which case the U.S. is virtually a child.

If we are talking straight up independent governments with pure, uninterrupted histories (including occupations of any kind), then the discussion is different.

There has not been a statement to clarify this issue. Hence, I am trying to discern how we are determining what defines the age of a country which is changing by the answer.

Lord Yavimaya wrote:

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.

We are talking about nation states. The German occupation of the greeks, as well as the earlier Ottoman occupation excludes it from this list. France changing governments does not exclude it from the list, but France under German occupation does exclude it. This list is about polity not culture.

Cold War Communist wrote:I am operating with the understanding that this is about geopolitics, in which case the U.S. is virtually a child.

If we are talking straight up independent governments with pure, uninterrupted histories (including occupations of any kind), then the discussion is different.

There has not been a statement to clarify this issue. Hence, I am trying to discern how we are determining what defines the age of a country which is changing by the answer.

My definition is an independant polity that has not been conquered or ruled by a foreign or greater power from founding to present. That has been my personal definition this whole thread. The problem is that there are six countries that disputedly meet that criteria and only four that definitely do, so the reason it may seem to be changing by the answer is because the discussion itself is to define how geopolitically old a country is in comparison to the U.S.

Out of the countries listed, I agree that Bhutan, Thailand, the UK and Oman count, and for the possible others I would count Sweden, since despite being part of Sweden-Norway, SweNor was basically just Sweden and happened to include Norway (capital in Stockholm, Swedish royalty, etc.), and China, I dunno, I would call the Yuan, Ming, Qing, and Yuan Shikai's Republic incarnations of China, but when the Warlord era comes around in the 1910s-20s, it gets kinda hard to say, since with both the KMT and Beiyang government, you could say that there were two seperate Chinas.

Almost looks like this guy read our discussion

I think a dramatic change in government, e.g., an absolute monarchy to a constitutional republic, indicates a sea change in the philosophical underpinnings of a nation-state. You can say Greece or China has been a country for thousands of years, but to really be "older" than the United States, a people really should have had a consistent form of government since before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers studied the success and virtue of government types throughout human history, and then had a protracted public debate about it before settling on the exact type we still have 230 years on.

If simply being an identifiable people-group were adequate, I'd say the U.S. is ever-changing. The United States of America is more a set of ideas and ideals than a nation-state in the traditional sense.

UPDATE:

After a renewd interest in the topic of geopolitical age of countries older than the U.S., i have found through further research that the list I originally made for this post is actually smaller. The U.K. was formed in 1801, with the union of Great Britain and Ireland. It was actaully Great Britain that was formed in 1707 with the union of England and Scotland. Also i didn't realize that Oman was a British protectorate from 1891-1951.

With that being said, there remains only two countries in the world that I know for sure are geopolitically older than the U.S.- Bhutan and Thailand. Bhutan was unified in 1634 by Ngawang Namgyal and was never subjugated by a foreign country from then up until present day. Thailand was last subjugated in 1767 when it was briefly conqueded by Burma, but regained its independance later that year and was unified again by 1770 with the ascension of Taksin the Great.

So correct me if i'm wrong, but the only two countries in the world that are geopolitically older than the United States are in fact Bhutan and Thailand.

ceaserkhan22, good post! However, I'm not completely convinced Thailand counts. What was their relationship to Japan during the Second World War? I've seen a source that indicated they were an Axis power (like Hungary in 1940) and a source that indicated they had an internal political divide "settled" for them when Japanese occupation forces showed up to secure their conformity to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (like Hungary in 1944). I know they declared war on the Allies, but was it legitimately the government of Thailand? I guess I could at least go to Wikipedia before displaying my ignorance here for all the world (or at least the remaining 5 people who get email notifications) to see.

After going to Wikipedia, I feel somewhat less informed on Thailand's role in WW2. I think they may qualify as either an Axis power, or an occupied country depending on your point of view. I guess, pending further review, the play stands as called. Thailand is one of the top two longest continually existing independent countries still around today.

Thorfinn Karlsefni, wow, to be honest I'm surprised someone actually responded to this, considering this forum has been a wasteland for well over a year now.

Yes, the one reservation I had for Thailand as a candidate for this topic was what happened with them during WW2. However from the information I have gathered, it seems as though Thailand was not conquered by Japan, but possibly to a degree controlled by Japan. A comparable historical example that seems almost equivalent I would say would be to think of Austria during the Napoleonic Wars. Unlike the Netherlands which Napoleon annexed or Spain which he occupied, Austria was never directly controlled by Napoleon, though it was forced into a reluctant alliance with him. I would argue Thailand's situation in WW2 was very similar to Austria's situation in the Napoleonic wars, fully independent but heavily influenced. In fact Plaek Phibunsongkhram, who was basically the dictator of Thailand during WW2 was for the most part sympathetic to the Japanese as he himself was an ultra-nationalist and saw the european allies as a greater enemy than Japan, unlike Francis I of Austria who despised Napoleon, especially on an ideological level. Further more, the Thai-Japanese alliance seemed to be more genuine and a true alliance than the Austria-France alliance which seemed more client based, escpecially since Francis I turned on Napoleon every chance he got (4 seperate times), while Thailand's government worked with the Japanese until the end of the war (despite some independant resistance movements). Also as WW2 ended Thailand, unlike Japan, was even able to avoid occupation by the victorious allies due to the fact that Khuang Aphaiwong who was a moderate had replaced Plaek Phibun in 1944 and was able to both keep the alliance with Japan but also pave the way for an allied friendly post war Thailand. So i would argue since Thailand was never conquered by Japan, but was instead an ally of Japan (even being nicknamed the Fascist Italy of Asia by both sides), that Thailand is older than the United States as a continually independant state, 1767/1770- present. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong about any of this.