Nepal is considered unified in 362 AD by Nepalese, South Asians etc when the Lichavi Dynasty declared the 'Kingdom of Nepal'. Like China, Nepal considers itself united when a dynasty unites, then after some time, the dynasty falls apart before a new one comes and unites it all together once again. The 1768 Unification is considered the last usurpation, with the Shahs usurping the old Malla Triarchy in the Kingdom.I probably should have posted this with my intial thing, but the list was all in my phone's notes and I had to redo it for a computer-friendly format, but here's the full list I made
A is for "starts" allowing for breaks in continuity, B is for "starts" without allowing for it. This is just by my own reckoning and a lot of it is from memory, so if it's all a load of crap, that's why
What countries can claim to be the oldest nation states?
- Thread starter Jimbo808
- Start date
There was also a clear understanding what an Egyptian looked like compared to neighbouring peoples, e.g. from a mural in the tomb of Seti I.
From right to left: An Egyptian, a Hittite, a Nubian and a Libyan
But it's remained the dominant part (>80-90% of the population) of the legal entities that followed, which might as well have been called Greater England.
Because they were for a time devided and thus ceased to exist as legal entities. Bohemia on the other hand can look back to an uninterrupted historical existence since its' founding as a united duchy in the later 9th century with almost the same borders as today's Czech Republic, borders, which have only once been really called into question (by the Munich agreement). Now Bohemia has been foreign ruled for several centuries, but always as a united legal entity, be it as the Kingdom of Bohemia in personal union under the Hapsburgs or the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia under Nazi Germany, thus no real break in continuity.
Crazy Boris
Banned
I did some looking into Licchavi, and though it is a predecessor to Nepal, I’m not sure if I can call it an incarnation of Nepal, since they ruled only a part of Nepal and I’m not sure they ever used that name for their realm, the closest I found is “Napala” in a list of the Gupta Empire’s tributary, which may refer to the whole region and not just the Licchavi realm. I also saw an image of a Gupta coin giving the description of “Lichaviya” to a Licchavi-born consort, which I think supports that it was considered distinct from the wider region, otherwise she’d be called “Napala”.
That said, I’m very ameteur when it comes to most South Asian history, so I could be totally wrong, and I did have a note in my list for that, if you can find something that demonstrates a strong connection between Licchavi and the Gorkha-united kingdom, I’ll change the list. Also, what about the Kirati kingdom, which, IIRC, predates Licchavi?
Last edited:
All the dynasties have ruled lands that were not a part of modern Nepal whilst not having parts that are also a part of modern Nepal. Nonetheless, like how modern Sweden has control over Lappland whilst it's medieval incarnation did not, the formal title claimed by the Lichavi was 'Kings of Nepal/Nepala/Nepal Mandala.' Medieval Nepal - Vol. 1,2&3 by DR Regmi is a good compilation of three books on the decline of the Lichavi's that goes into this. Similarly, whilst the Kirat Kingdom is considered a predecessor state, they never claimed the title of 'Kingdom of Nepal' and thus aren't Nepal.
Exsuce you are you supporting russian backed break awey state and kingdom of abkazia was georgian truly crazy indedI probably should have posted this with my intial thing, but the list was all in my phone's notes and I had to redo it for a computer-friendly format, but here's the full list I made
A is for "starts" allowing for breaks in continuity, B is for "starts" without allowing for it. This is just by my own reckoning and a lot of it is from memory, so if it's all a load of crap, that's why
Last edited:
Crazy Boris
Banned
First off, acknowledging the existence of something doesn’t equal supporting it, the official Boris Stance™️ is one of not really having a stance and just being glad the area’s not an active warzone anymore. I’m not really pro-Abkhazia or anti-Abkhazia, I’m just saying it’s there. Like it or not Abkhazia exists as a de facto country, and I always try and use de facto in everything I do, so it goes on the list.
People can give me a hundred arguments as to why Abkhazia should or should not be an independent country, and they’re more than entitled to believe whatever they want, but even a million arguments doesn’t change what the actual geopolitical situation is on the ground in the Caucasus, so that takes priority, opinions don’t alter reality.
Second, as far as I can tell, the old Abkhazian Kingdom was both Kartvelian and Abkhaz, it’s kind of hard to tell since nationalists from both groups have muddled the historiography something fierce, but between the name, the kingdom having grown out of the lands of the Abasgoi tribe in the area of Abkhazia, and the fact the ruling dynasty seems to have had Abkhaz lineage as well as Georgian, I think it’s fair to count it as a predecessor to the modern state.
Last edited:
Isn't this ancient national stereotype? I doubt that Libyans and Egyptians were drastically different from each other, but slight differences were exaggerated. Same as Greeks describing Thracians as blonde and blue eyed or Arabs describing Greeks as such.There was also a clear understanding what an Egyptian looked like compared to neighbouring peoples, e.g. from a mural in the tomb of Seti I.
From right to left: An Egyptian, a Hittite, a Nubian and a Libyan
Definately, but national stereotypes require the idea of distinct nations existing to begin with and are thus a good indicator that the ethnogenesis of said ethnicities has reached a point where we correctly may apply the term nation / nation state to them.
We can debate whether the First Intermediate Period was also an interruption in that case, since the country was divided between two rival dynasties attempting to reunify it.
It is generally agreed by historians that the Danish kingdom has existed since around the 700s. The construction of the Dannevirke, as well as Godfred's expansion of the fortifications, is seen as evidence of an organised and centralised state in Denmark.
Last edited:
@Crazy Boris where did you take those dates from? Looking from my local (Central and Southern Europe) professional point of view, a few of them are quite questionable.
Others have old monumental architecture that indicates centralized authority and bureacracy that guides labor and resoueces from which one may infere the existence of a state. By the same metric we could give Turkey 10.000 years due to Gobelki Tepe. Nowadays historians give hunter, tribal and chieftain stages of development more recognition for their achievements and don't jump that quickly to conclusions any more.
As for the question generally... How many breaks and renamings are acceptable? Egyptians are Egyptians, but they never called themselves that way. Why don't we equate Iraqis with Sumerians who have a few thousand years on the Egyptians?
prani
Banned
What about Russia? I think it's the oldest continuous existant nation state, from the reign of Ivan the Formidable (terrible) the Russian nation state has existed in some form or other, but the Russian people always held sovereignty over themselves ( or rather the royal family or the CPSU or whatever the heck Putin's regime is) and other nations that they subjugated (remember Russia is still an empire it's just called Russian federation) even during Soviet rule, the Russian state no longer exercised it's sovereignty, de jure but de facto... let's not joke around, the USSR was an empire where the Russians ruled in co operation of the Belorussians and Ukrainians subjugating over 50 nationalities.
And also not by Libyans. Sheshonk and his descendants didn´t conquer Egypt, they were descendants that already had lived for generations there. they overtook the government.
Crazy Boris
Banned
Most of them just came from the dates wiki has for the events listed, which ones are iffy?
The point is that people living in Denmark in 700 was called Danes by both themselves and their neighbors, the few literary evidence they left behind is in Old Danish, we can interpret their symbolism because it fit their later written down folklore and mythology. Their neighbors claim them to be a unified kingdom. If we look at break in Danish continuity, there was seven year in the High Middle Ages, which is called the kingless time, which ended with the son of the last king being elected king. Beside that there was five years of occupation in 1940ties with two of the years without a government, where the Denmark was still administrated by the Danish civil service and where the king was still king. Honestly that’s a better continuity than pretty much everyone else.
technically none since the nation state is a very modern invention, but in terms of continuity and continuous evolution of language, religion, culture, and custom, probably China. Egypt gained a different language, religion, and identity, Mesopotamian civilization & statehood went extinct although the Christianized descendants of the Aramaicized lay population of Assyria & Babylonia still exist, Greek language and culture continuously evolved and changed but there was a break in statehood that’s inherently vague (When does the Byzantine Roman Empire become a different state than the classical Roman Empire will never have a concise answer), Persia still speaks the same language SORT OF.
Crazy Boris
Banned
I did some more reading into Licchavi and I'm convinced, I'm adding their foundation to the list as Nepal's "A" date, and moving the Shah unification to the position of Nepal's "B" date