The Gaming Den

The Kingdom of Nepal (1769-2008) is over. The Republic of Nepal gets its constitution in April.

The bumps up the United Kingdom to the world's oldest country (1801-Present), and the United States of America to the world's second oldest country (1865-Present).

Woohoo!

-Username17

The US as second oldest?

That's pretty funny. Most of the West-European countries had built Empires, had their Empires kicked over, then settled down and given up on conquest before America was discovered. And it gets to be older, because they keep changing and moving about, and forming the EU and everything.

And grumpy old England wins

If you wanted to nominate Switzerland for second oldest, I wouldn't stop you. They declared their constitution in 1848, 17 years before These United States became The United States. But of course, The United States kept their consitution intact through the entire civil war, so you can call that either way.

---

The long and the short of it is that nations which existed at the turn of the 20th century and still existed at the turn of the 21st are in sufficiently short supply that you could write them on your hand. And one of them just deposed its King and is reforming as a republic.

Another one bites the dust.

-Username17

Measuring your age by when you last changed your name seems a bit odd...

Given the concept of nation-state, tracking duration by government regime changes seems only logical.

If you track by regime changes, the US is always a very young country .

But who decides if it is a new regime?

Why place the beginning of the UK at 1800, with the Act of Union with Ireland, and not when most of Ireland went independent again?

I can't decide (as someone who lives in the UK) if the UK being at the top of the list is good, or if the US being right behind us is bad.

I thought that Iceland got the top spot with the 'oldest continuous parliament' thing.

[edit]I searched about a bit, and arguably(they argue so), the oldest 'continuous' parliament is that of the Isle of Man, and not Iceland

SunTzuWarmaster at [unixtime wrote:1199125540[/unixtime]]If you track by regime changes, the US is always a very young country .

Fwib: that's a good question.

Fwib wrote:Measuring your age by when you last changed your name seems a bit odd...

Yes! I'm seven! I'll have my first child when I'm eight!!

I guess it boils down to how to you define a country.

Same plot of land? Then some place in africa, seems likely to be the oldest 'country' in the world.

Same ruler? Then USA gets reborn every 4 or 8 years. Monarchies like England get longer, unless you count parliament or the prime minister. I'm not fluent enough in English politics to know how often that turns over.

Same code of laws? Well, new laws get passed every day, so that's probably out.

Same form of government? If so, all those African countries that go from dictator to dictator are apparently pretty stable...

Even if you go with a basic document of government, like the Constitution or .. the magna carta? Is that thing still in effect? Do amendments count as a change? At what point is it a new document?

I think that, for countries at least, name changes are probably the best bet.

As an aside, I knew someone who had a kid when they were 'eight.' Their birthday was on feb 29th.

technomancer at [unixtime wrote:1199149093[/unixtime]]

As an aside, I knew someone who had a kid when they were 'eight.' Their birthday was on feb 29th.

It doesn't matter what birthday they had, they weren't eight if they had a kid, they were thirty-two.

I was born on february 29th. And every time someone wants to quip that I'm only 6, I have fantasies about punching them in the dick. It's not fucking funny.

A country stays itself when its rulers and its laws change according to its own procedures, and stops being that country when it is overthrown by someone. So while Cost Rica made a Constitution in 1838, it also had the repressive Calderon government overthrown in the 40s by a group of socialists. That made them a new country even though they didn't change the name of the place.

-Username17

In that case, the UK's beginning should be set to 1922, when Ireland split off, no? (not sure about the 'according to procedures' definition)

Or if not 1922, then not 1800 either, since wasn't the 1800 union according to procedures?

Of course, I never studied history, so I may be missing some obvious stuff.

Seccession of a province or four only changes the home country's existence if the government actually changes somehow. The United States did not become a new country when it lost the Phillipines, and France did not become a new country when it lost French Indochina. France did become a new country when it faced conquest by the Third Reich and fascist sympathizers volunteered to make a new government in Vichy.

So the United Kingdom did not cease to be when four of the Irish counties became independent. But in 1801 the United Kingdom declared itself to be a new country with new rules, and new borders, and a new flag. And well, that's good enough for me.

I mean seriously, as a UK subject, would you salute this:


I mean, come on!

-Username17

I don't do flag-saluting, but I have no objection to the pre-1800 flag, not that I notice flags much.

I shall be interested to see how the campaign to put a symbol of Wales on the flag goes.

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1199101142[/unixtime]]and the United States of America to the world's second oldest country (1865-Present).

Pardon me, but WTF? How the hell can they say the ending of the Civil War was the "beginning" of the United States of America? The United States should be considered a single country from the point of the establishment of the Constitution. (1787) Not the point where a number of break away nations were reunited by force, because they were reunited to the same country they had left.

And we are not that old as far as a country. Many other areas are older but not as a country. These countries in turn had significant changes in their form of government over the years. Countries as italy didn't really exist as a unified "country" until well into the 19th century. Countries that did exist well before the 18th century often had significant changes to the way the government was structured (Spain is a good example).

If we are measuring by flag change....

lol, just kidding.

SunTzuWarmaster at [unixtime wrote:1199319174[/unixtime]]If we are measuring by flag change....

Flags are sort of like coats of arms. The description of the US flag hasn't really changed since we dropped the increasing number of stripes with the 16th state. In fact it wasn't until the 20th century when the arrangement of the stars was written anywhere in the flag laws, technically the stars could be arranged any way that worked and often were.

Note that these arrangements are done by Executive Order. This means that the last act that changed the flag was April 4, 1818. The rest is done on autopilot as the number of stars is always equal to the number of states (that we claim) are in the Union.

History of the US Flag

Now if we are talking about currency change ....
(Yes I'm kidding too)

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1199284535[/unixtime]]

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1199101142[/unixtime]]and the United States of America to the world's second oldest country (1865-Present).

Pardon me, but WTF? How the hell can they say the ending of the Civil War was the "beginning" of the United States of America? The United States should be considered a single country from the point of the establishment of the Constitution. (1787) Not the point where a number of break away nations were reunited by force, because they were reunited to the same country they had left.

I have to agree. The Civil War didn't change the fundamental governmental structures of the U.S. Unless you're counting the birth of the modern two-party system. Of course, the most significant feature of that system (the virtual impossibility of a third party getting on the ballot in all states) was made by procedures at the state level.

I have to agree. The Civil War didn't change the fundamental governmental structures of the U.S. Unless you're counting the birth of the modern two-party system. Of course, the most significant feature of that system (the virtual impossibility of a third party getting on the ballot in all states) was made by procedures at the state level.

Not true. The end of the Civil War not only changed the name on the invites ("The United States" vs. "These United States") it also changed the funamental relationship between the states and the federal government. States became provinces, while as before they were defined as and considered a collection of federated countries.

Huge change. The nation stopped being the EU and started being well, a nation.

-Username17

It's not often that I get to disagree with Frank, but I'm going to strongly disagree. It took a long time before states became provinces (and I even disagree that they are provinces - more like a semi province semi state relationship) and even then the process that caused this relationship is actually not enshrined in the government.

One could argue that it was the early 20th century that really started the major federalism trend with the 16th amendment (federal taxes) and the 17th amendment (direct election of federal senators). And yet these amendments limited states powers they did not eliminate them.

While the federal government has considerable power over the states (mostly because the federal government is not oblieged to balance their budget while the states are by their own constitutions generally bound to do so and thus rely on federal monies on several levels) the states are still vastly independent in many ways, even in areas where the federal government should be involved.

(Interstate commerce is a common excuse for federal intervention but that still has not prevented a bizzare and practically insane system for the interstate shipping of wine, for example.)

P.S. This is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We've been The United States since the constitution. Someone was apparently sending out the wrong invites.

Frank is partially right that the US wasn't really a unified country until after Civil War, as it had been planned from Declaration.
However, I thought the US was a republic, not a confederacy (as much as some morons wish it to be).

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1200444408[/unixtime]]However, I thought the US was a republic, not a confederacy (as much as some morons wish it to be).

Originally it was a confederacy. I'll leave it to the professional historians to properly describe the Articles of Confederation but I'll just say that it sucked more than (insert the game designer that you hate the most)'s latest supplement.

The US certanly was a unified country, just as it is a unified country today. There was one issue that divided the nation and that issue went along geographical lines. There are issues today that come close to dividing the nation as the slavery issue did back then but otherwise we are still a unified nation. The Civil War was fought by generals who were once classmates together.

True, we were unified in wartime with the "fight the Brits" and the "the Brits are trying to economically sabotage us" efforts. But really, the only reason Georgia was in the US was because it was convenient, they would have happily called themselves Brits. We were certainly not unified, and the Civil War was not even really about slavery. It was about "Hey, us in the South don't think you have the right to do that, so we, like, aren't going to listen". It just happened that the first major conflict (where a compromise is virtually impossible) with an enforceable law happened to be slavery.