Which Of The Worlds Countries Have Never Been Conquered By Another Nation?

[hangman]

On this topic I've learned Scotland, England, USA (as it was discovered not conquered) and Germany never have been conquered? What do you think? Kind regards.

 

[Neander]

China,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Taranis]

China,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Mongols, Manchus?

Regarding Germany, it was clearly conquered 1945, 1918, 1806, and if you will, 1648, so in a nutshell, no. Same with England and Scotland.

 

[Neander]

Mongols, Manchus?

I dont know much about it, but as I remember they just atacked somtimes, and conquered a little piece of whole territory

 

[Neander]

On this topic I've learned Scotland, England, USA (as it was discovered not conquered) and Germany never have been conquered? What do you think? Kind regards.

Scotland is just conwuered by England.

 

[sparkey]

Where have you learned that? I think you have some reading to do... starting with England... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest

 

[Taranis]

I dont know much about it, but as I remember they just atacked somtimes, and conquered a little piece of whole territory

The Mongols conquered all of China in the 1270s, which may have resulted in as much as half of China's population at that point being killed, and established the Mongol-derived Yuan dynasty in the country, which was overthrown less than a century later by the Ming dynasty.

Later on, in the 1640s, the Manchus conquered Ming China and established the Qing dynasty, which ruled over China until the monarchy was abolished in 1912.

 

[Sirius2b]

I think that the case of Brazil, Canada or Australia, for example, are the same as the USA. I could think of more examples, but I think it is not necessary.

 

[Drac]

What do you think? Kind regards.

It depends on what you mean by "country". If you mean the modern political/geographic boundaries defining those countries, then maybe. If you mean the areas that today are those countries but at a time when such countries did not really exist, then no.

On this topic I've learned Scotland, England,

USA (as it was discovered not conquered)

The land that later became the United States was conquered from the native peoples by Spaniards, French and English.

and Germany never have been conquered?

 

[Melusine]

How about when William Duke of Normandy (France) conquered England in 1066? Does this not count as a conquest , including most of what is now known as the UK.?


Melusine

 

[LeBrok]

Only few very young countries were never conquered, like Canada, USA and Australia. Actually Canada and Australia constitutionally belong to GB. That means that only USA as independent nation was never conquered.

Mongolia was conquered by Russia, and dominated by Soviets.

One could make a point that Russia was never conquered either. History of proper Russia starts after unification of some Slavic tribes, after collapse of Tatar/Mongol domination in eastern Europe.

 

[Antigone]

Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand have all been conquered, it was us Europeans who did the deed. All these countries were inhabited originally.

England has been conquered a number of times, Celts, Romans, Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Norse and finally the Normans. Scotland likewise, and they were finally conquered by the English after the battle of Culloden.

I think it will be difficult to find any country or land that has not been invaded at some time or other, not to mention that they'd be so very in-bred by now!

 

[LeBrok]

Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand have all been conquered, it was us Europeans who did the deed. All these countries were inhabited originally.
QUOTE]

What are you talking about? These countries didn't exist till Europeans arrived. In other words, they have started these countries. Before this, there was just American continent with many native tribes on it. There was not even a name Australia or New Zealand, because aborigines called it something else. Different name, different people, different language, different culture, no continuity.

It is (almost) the same if you would say that the first conquest of France happened when Cesar defeated Galls.

 

[hangman]

Only few very young countries were never conquered, like Canada, USA and Australia. Actually Canada and Australia constitutionally belong to GB. That means that only USA as independent nation was never conquered.

Mongolia was conquered by Russia, and dominated by Soviets.

One could make a point that Russia was never conquered either. History of proper Russia starts after unification of some Slavic tribes, after collapse of Tatar/Mongol domination in eastern Europe.

That's great...America is land that I Love. Bets regards LeBrook.

 

[Antigone]

What are you talking about? These countries didn't exist till Europeans arrived. In other words, they have started these countries. Before this, there was just American continent with many native tribes on it.

Wow, there is the typical Eurocentric view, nothing existed until the big white man turned up to make it exist. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with it, you didn't disappoint.

Of course they all existed, not under the names that they currently have and under a different construct than we know today but they most certainly existed.

Perhaps you could try explaining to Australian aboriginals how they didn't exist for 40,000 years. No continuity indeed.

 

[sparkey]

Wow, there is the typical Eurocentric view, nothing existed until the big white man turned up to make it exist. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with it, you didn't disappoint.

Of course they all existed, not under the names that they currently have and under a different construct than we know today but they most certainly existed.

Perhaps you could try explaining to Australian aboriginals how they didn't exist for 40,000 years. No continuity indeed.

Well, I think that the dispute here is a confusion of terms rather than Eurocentrism. For example, "North America" or "the land that would become the United States" has obviously been conquered. "The United States" has yet to be, unless you count pieces of it, like the former Commonwealth of the Philippines.

 

[Antigone]

Well, I think that the dispute here is a confusion of terms rather than Eurocentrism. For example, "North America" or "the land that would become the United States" has obviously been conquered. "The United States" has yet to be, unless you count pieces of it, like the former Commonwealth of the Philippines.

You beat me to it Sparkey, I was just thinking along the same lines and was about to reply again. As the OP didn't specify modern history I was assuming he was taking all historical eras into consideration.

Although the fact that "what is now known" as England was invaded a few times in the distant past has been accepted and passed as an answer to the original question yet feathers fly over the suggestion that "what is now known" as the US has also been similarily invaded in the not so distant past. Why is that?

 

[LeBrok]

Wow, there is the typical Eurocentric view, nothing existed until the big white man turned up to make it exist. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with it, you didn't disappoint.

Of course they all existed, not under the names that they currently have and under a different construct than we know today but they most certainly existed.

Perhaps you could try explaining to Australian aboriginals how they didn't exist for 40,000 years. No continuity indeed.

Before English came there was no country Australia (read the title of this thread again). There were just many tribes that spoke many languages. Continent (not country) Australia was never united by any of the tribes, therefore, one might say, that there were many smaller countries with different names, on this continent that we know now as Australia. Even if one of the tribes united it, the country would have a different name, different language, different culture, different people genetically, etc, it wasn't Australia.
Now the Europeans came, mostly British, conquered all the tribes and other European colonies, united the land under name of Australia. Australia as a country is very young and started around 1850.

Once again, there was no country Australia before 1850. There was a continent that we know as Australia, but there was no country of this name.

 

[Antigone]

Before English came there was no country Australia (read the title of this thread again). There were just many tribes that spoke many languages. Continent (not country) Australia was never united by any of the tribes, therefore, one might say, that there were many smaller countries with different names, on this continent that we know now as Australia. Even if one of the tribes united it, the country would have a different name, different language, different culture, different people genetically, etc, it wasn't Australia.
Now the Europeans came, mostly British, conquered all the tribes and other European colonies, united the land under name of Australia. Australia as a country is very young and started around 1850.

Once again, there was no country Australia before 1850. There was a continent that we know as Australia, but there was no country of this name.

Yes I was born there and it wasn't officially Australia until 1901 but the name Australia had been used to refer to the land as early as the early 1800s. But all that is beside the point.

Perhaps you could tell me what name would be acceptable to refer to the lands that are now known as Australia and the USA etc before the modern political constructs? Is there even one in existance? Because it really doesn't matter whether I used the convenience of their modern names, nor does it matter how many tribes lived in either, nor whether or not they were united. The lands that are now known as Australia and USA etc were still conquered, it was because they were conquered that their modern identities were formed.

Now you may like to categorize your history, draw neat little lines and pretend your peoples existance didn't happen at the expense of anothers but I do not. I see continuity in it all.

I'd still like to know how it is acceptable to use the modern name of England when referring to invasions that happened when that island was just as un-united and tribal as the USA or Australia, but modern names are somehow not acceptable when referring to past invasions in certain other places?

 

[LeBrok]

The lands that are now known as Australia and USA etc were still conquered, it was because they were conquered that their modern identities were formed.

You answered yourself. The thread was about conquered countries/nations and not about conquered lands or continents.