This is not a quiz. There is only one question, and it is not suitable
for a quiz, since there more than one "depends on what you mean".

But still, post your answers - without checking sources - and I will
try to summarise this on Sunday.

So this is the question: Of the independent countries that exist today,
existed also 500 years ago, in some shape or form, and has existed
in these 500 years without interruption?

If you want to add comments for why you include or do not include a certain
country, feel free to do so.

Erland Sommarskog:
> [Which] Of the independent countries that exist today,
> existed also 500 years ago, in some shape or form, and has existed
> in these 500 years without interruption?

My best guess at a list is:

China
Egypt
France
Greece
Iceland
Japan
Russia
San Marino
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey

Arguably the United Kingdom goes on the list by being the same country
that England was then.
--
Mark Brader "I suppose that the distances from us [to the
Toronto stars] vary so much that some are two or three
msb@vex.net times as remote as others." -- Galileo

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 3:53:44 PM UTC-4, Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> This is not a quiz. There is only one question, and it is not suitable
> for a quiz, since there more than one "depends on what you mean".
>
> But still, post your answers - without checking sources - and I will
> try to summarize this on Sunday.
>
> So this is the question: Of the independent countries that exist today,
> existed also 500 years ago, in some shape or form, and has existed
> in these 500 years without interruption?
>
> If you want to add comments for why you include or do not include a certain
> country, feel free to do so.

interesting thought experiment. let's try alphabetically.

austria
china
denmark
ethiopia
greece
iran
iraq
japan
mongolia
morocco
norway
portugal
san marino
spain
sweden (happy 500th birthday!)
switzerland
thailand

I don't count france, germany, poland and
several others because of world war ii
territorial disputes. samefor russia and
he other former soviet states.

the amerinds of north america are an interesting case,
but I don't include them because while they still maintain
'territory' on reservations and still have a form of
government, they are not really independent states.

swp

Stephen Perry:
> austria
> china
> denmark
> ethiopia
> greece
> iran
> iraq
> japan
> mongolia
> morocco
> norway
> portugal
> san marino
> spain
> sweden (happy 500th birthday!)
> switzerland
> thailand
>
> I don't count france, germany, poland and
> several others because of world war ii
> territorial disputes.

You're right, I forgot France was entirely occupied.
So was Abyssinia, so no Ethopia.

Morocco was part of the Spanish empire, wasn't it?
That's where the Spanish Civil War got started.

> samefor russia and he other former soviet states.

Hmm. Counting Russia as the continuation of the USSR and the
previous Russia would be like counting the UK as the continuation
of England, so I should have done both or neither, I guess.
But WW2 didn't interrupt its existence, so I don't see why
"same" would apply.
--
Mark Brader | "The dream of a common standard is er... enhanced
Toronto | by the diversity of a myriad of national rules..."
msb@vex.net | --Ian Walmsley

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On 6/6/23 12:53, Erland Sommarskog wrote:
>
> So this is the question: Of the independent countries that exist today,
> existed also 500 years ago, in some shape or form, and has existed
> in these 500 years without interruption?

England/Great Britain/UK
Ottoman Empire/Turkey
San Marino
Sweden

--
Dan Tilque

On 6/6/23 19:34, Dan Tilque wrote:
> On 6/6/23 12:53, Erland Sommarskog wrote:
>>
>> So this is the question: Of the independent countries that exist today,
>> existed also 500 years ago, in some shape or form, and has existed
>> in these 500 years without interruption?
>
>
> England/Great Britain/UK
> Ottoman Empire/Turkey
> San Marino
> Sweden
>
Oops, forgot Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Meant to
put it on the initial list.

--
Dan Tilque

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 2:53:44 PM UTC-5, Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> This is not a quiz. There is only one question, and it is not suitable
> for a quiz, since there more than one "depends on what you mean".
>
> But still, post your answers - without checking sources - and I will
> try to summarise this on Sunday.
>
> So this is the question: Of the independent countries that exist today,
> existed also 500 years ago, in some shape or form, and has existed
> in these 500 years without interruption?

Without researching it, here are my 9 candidates:

China
France
Iran
Japan
San Marino
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand

--
Joshua Kreitzer
gromit82@hotmail.com

Here are my answers to my question. To make it fair and even, I'm writing
this without having looked at the other answers, and without consulting
sources. In fact, this option is not open to me, as I'm typing this in
an airplane.

Once I'm on the ground and can read the other answers, I will followup
if there is anything of interest.

This is my list of countries that existed since 1523-06-06 without
interruption since:

Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, Andorra. Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland,
Turkey, Russia, Iran, China, Japan, Thailand and Ethiopia.

Remarks:
Sweden - On June 6 1523, the Swedish parliament elected Gustav Vasa as
king of Sweden. This resurrected Sweden as an independent kingdom, and
marked the end of Sweden's union with Denmark and Norway. So, yes, there
was a reason that I posted this question on the day I did.

Russia - There was no Russia in 1523, but here was The Grand Duchy of
Moscow. It had long stopped being a small city state, but it was a
greedy imprialistic state that was always on the move for territories
to swallow. Ivan the Terrible rebranded the country about the 30 years
later. (Soviet Union must be considered Russia by another name.)

Turkey - I see no reason not to consider Turkey as a contiuation of the
Ottonman Empitre.

Japan - This is not as clear-cut as one may think. In 1523 Japan had
fallen into a number of smaller feudal state. But, yes, there was an
emperor, and there was a shogun, even if they were mainly figureheads.
You could compare Japan to the Holy German-Roman Empire at the time -
a loose confederation.

Austria - A prime example of why this cannot be a true quiz question.
Was there an Austria in 1523? Yes. But was it an independent statotre?
Well, there was an emperor based in Vienna. But what was the emperor
over? Nominally, he was emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and he held
real power of Austria, Bohemia and some more territory. But can we
say that was a country called Austria? I more or less give up.

Iran, Thailand and Etiopia - Here I don't know very much about their
history. I'm somewhat sure that Iran is correct, but when it comes to
the other two, I would need to look it up to confirm.

There are a few countries which existed in 1523 and which exist today,
but which have not existed continously during this period:

Poland - Taken off the map entirely after its third partition in
1794. Back on the map after WWI.

Hungary - The disaster in Mohacs was only three years away in 1523.
This put most of Hungary under Ottoman rule, and what was left sought
refuge under the Habsburgs.

Portugal - Part of Span 1580-1640.

Morrocco - I think Morrocco was indpendent in some form in 1532.

Mark Brader (msb@vex.net) writes:
> Hmm. Counting Russia as the continuation of the USSR and the
> previous Russia would be like counting the UK as the continuation
> of England, so I should have done both or neither, I guess.
> But WW2 didn't interrupt its existence, so I don't see why
> "same" would apply.

As you may have noticed, I did not count the UK.

I would say there is a difference. Assume that the revolt of the Bruces
had failed, and Scotland had remained part of England from 1300 and on.
But at some point there had been some dissent, which had led to a re-
definition of the country into United Kingdom or something else in 1707.
In this case, England/UK had been a the same level as Russia/USSR.

USSR arose on territory that previously was Russia, and I don't think
there was any new territory. It is true, though, and there were some
short-lived republics before everything settled.

The United Kingdom was a new entity, formde by two states had been been
in a personal union for a hundred years. But true, with England as the
senior partner, and Scotland only providing the royal family.

My major problem with this question is what constitutes an interruption.
After thinking about it, I concluded that occupation by a foreign power
(e.g. Nazis, Napoleon) counted as an interruption. Hence I excluded
Austria, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Japan and others.

YMMV

--
Dan Tilque

swp (stephen.w.perry@gmail.com) writes:

These are not correct:

> greece

Part of Ottoman Empire. Independence fronm 1830.

> iraq

Part of Ottoman Empire.

> mongolia

Independent in 1523, but conquered by Qing China. Independent
again in 1911 or so.

> norway

In union with Denmark 1523, later it becaome a single kingdom.
A few weeks of independence in 1814, before forced into a union
with Sweden until 1905.

> portugal

See my other post.

> I don't count france, germany, poland and
> several others because of world war ii
> territorial disputes.

While Vichy France was a puppet state, it was still France. But in
any csae, I tend to overlook shorttime interruptions in war time
that were enacted through a peace treaty.

But as I noted, the question is open-ended.

FDitMark Brader (msb@vex.net) writes:
> Egypt

Ottoman Empire. Then a British protectorate. Independent in 1922,
if memory serves.

> Greece

See my response to Stephen.

> Iceland

Part of Norway in 1523, which in its turn was in Union with Denmark.
When Sweden got Norway in the peace treaty in Kiel 1813, Denmark
held to Iceland, the Faeores and Greenland. Iceland became independent
in 1918, if I have it right. First in personal union with Denmark.
Republic after WWII.

Dan Tilque (dtilque@frontier.com) writes:
> My major problem with this question is what constitutes an interruption.
> After thinking about it, I concluded that occupation by a foreign power
> (e.g. Nazis, Napoleon) counted as an interruption. Hence I excluded
> Austria, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Japan and others.

Good point. I had longer interruptions in mind, like Portugal actually
being part of Spain for 60 years.

Then again, for several of the examples you list, were there really
any interruptions at all? When it comes to Spain, my main concern
was when Spain was actually formed. De facto it was when Fernando
and Isabella got married. My recollection is that it was early 16th
century, but Wikipedia says "de jure 1715".

No matter what, I can't think of any true interruption. Yes, Napoleon
controlled Spain, but it was not annexed to France was it? Same
goes for German occupation of Denmark.

But true, I could have specified a limit like "interruption for more
than ten years" or so to avoid this kind of confusion.

But there are so many other problems with this question that it's
impossible to make it a strict trivia question, so it felt sort of
meaningless to make specifications.

Erland Sommarskog <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote:
> Dan Tilque (dtilque@frontier.com) writes:
> > My major problem with this question is what constitutes an interruption.
> > After thinking about it, I concluded that occupation by a foreign power
> > (e.g. Nazis, Napoleon) counted as an interruption. Hence I excluded
> > Austria, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Japan and others.

> Good point. I had longer interruptions in mind, like Portugal actually
> being part of Spain for 60 years.

I don't think it was, though. FWIW Wikipedia agrees with me, saying

"This was a personal union, so the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain
remained independent states, sharing only a single monarch."

--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum tool@panix.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."

Dan Blum (tool@panix.com) writes:
> I don't think it was, though. FWIW Wikipedia agrees with me, saying
>
> "This was a personal union, so the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain
> remained independent states, sharing only a single monarch."

I took a quick peek in the book on Portoguese history I have in
my bookshelf.

True, Philip II of Spain could claim the throne of Portugal by a
descender of an earlier Portoguese king. But he had to enforce the
claim by force. It also says that originally Spain promised that
Portugal would be able have their own laws etc, but this quickly
eroded. Many Portuguese refer to the period as the "Spanish Captivity".

So, no, I don't think Portugal and Spain were on equal terms in
that union.