Thousand year old country thread

This thread is for countries who are more than a thousand years old. If you are from a baby country, you are not allowed to post.

Invited:
Japan
China
San Marino
France
Austria
Denmark
Hungary

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan
m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXP9yXkhyVg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_omnibus_Gothorum_Sueonumque_regibus
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Hi, I consider Ireland to be more than a thousand years old due to the nominal existence of the High King thanks

Hello, thousand friend :3
By the way, isn't Germany a thousand country?

Hello.

hello real countries

>
>
>

You guys don't even speak Irish, the fact that you are even considered a country, is a disgrace to civilization

Hello my friend. :3
Germany was split into states and didn't unify before 19th hundred.

>still 110 years to go

How does it feel to be millenia old?

hello my old friends

How about egypt?

I'm not sure if you guys count or not actually.

lol

Pretty sure Britain and France created the current Egypt country

Pretty embarrassing that I come out of nowhere, and within 300 years make all of your pathetic "muh thousand year old" countries irrelevant

fuck ALL OF YOU
Navajo nation best nation

Hello

year 966 worst year of my life

Maybe if it was ruled by Copts.
Modern Egypt is a European creation.

>1000 years in existence
>Can’t even invent Airplanes

America wins again

>By the way, isn't Germany a thousand country?

I thought it would be a thousand years if Germany added Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire. :3

In Sup Forums, I often saw posters who said ""Germany destroyed Europe four times"", so I thought that Germany are thousand friend too.

988 for me

>tfw the stupid danes sold their caribbean colonies.

Most of those countries have been occupied at some point, silly user. Also I am a true son of the Gael so how dare you.

your mom

they were too expensive to maintain and they would've been annexed sooner or later anyway.

Pfft you're all kids. India and China are the oldest surviving civilisations

>India
India was made by Brits, silly boy.

XD

>India was made by brits
>Mauryan empire
>Gupta empire
>Delhi sultanate
>Mughal empire
>Maratha Empire

Well there you go, you were not a country for a 1000 years

>not having a big unified blue block

how does it feel knowing that your cunt will slowly degenerate over time while the former colonies kill each other

hm, so no India whasoever.
If any of those states existed today, those would be millenial, not India.

As it stands, India is as if the EU federalized tomorrow. The EU would be dated then, not at the date of earliest state inside the EU.

Literally all of those mentioned countries have been conquered at some point or other.
The region still has existed nonetheless as a separate geographical identity throughout history, regardless of the monarch
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan

History of China
>Qing Dynasty
>Ming Dynasty
>Empire of Mongolia
>Song dynasty
>Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period
>Tang Dynasty

pic related

Nukes will come soon.

Hindustan was never a concrete state, or is as concrete as "Christendom".

Your logic is utterly retarded.

business idea: we restore our empires and eat roasted brits

m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXP9yXkhyVg

MARSZ MARSZ POLONIA

What's the matter, a bit too hungry are ya? ;)

China is different from India. China is deepling linked to its main ethnicity, the Han, which is a very old ethnicity. The Mongol and the Qing dynasties operated as a ruling class, but claimed the title of Emperor of the middle kingdom, which admits China was not interrupted by them. People have identified has Han people for millenia. Nobody identified as an Indian.

Æthelstan established the kingdom of england in 937 meaning we're over 1000 years old

This^^
Each of the empires I mentioned ruled for a good 2-3 centuries, making a 1000-1500 years of Hindustan existing as a unified state

>deepling
what the fuck

*deeply

I see
History is so difficult

hey there

Because people identified as 'hindus' aka the natives of Hindustan. The term hinduism used to have a cultural association you know, not a religious one.

Hindustan was never a concrete state, it's a religious concept like Christendom.

The states you mentioned don't claim and never claimed to be successors of the other. They never identified themselves as "Indians" or any other core identity other than perhaps a religious one.

thank you desu

It's more a conceptual issue than an historical one.

>It's a religious concept
Hinduism wasn't a religion historically. There were many philosophical schools of thought, including Jainism,Buddhism , Agnosticism and Atheism. Hindu pretty much referred to the geographical identity as per the Persians . Greeks called it Indus. Jews called it Hodu. Japs called it Tenjiku. Chinese called it Tianzhu.

八咫烏!
Yata-Garasu!

wait does that mean we're actually really old too? sweet

Sweden has existed since 2259 BC

Uhm, sorry sweetie but we date back to 753 B.C. :)

>The states you mentioned don't claim and never claimed to be successors of the other.
If you know even a little about the Indian history, you'd realize its full of kingdoms trying to gain control of the geographical region of the indian subcontinent. Never has there been any expedition to expand beyond that(except a bunch of south east asian islands I guess)

I'm not the one making this up btw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_omnibus_Gothorum_Sueonumque_regibus
we wuz noah of the arc and shit

The northeast states are the only present part that has existed as a separate identity throughout history

Yes, per Persians and Greeks, Hindu is an exogenous concept and not a pan endogenous "Indian" identity. Hidustan was used to reffer to a large area that is mostly Pakistan and northwestern India, which leaves most of India out of it. The Mauryas and the Guptas, which originated seperately and independently of this "identity" and didn't see each other as successors to the other or claiming be anything.

There's a reason India is considered a sub-continent:
Because it's separated from other areas of the world by geographical features that are hard to traverse over by humans and even harder by armies. It's therefore pretty obvious that people would rather conquer what is more accessible than what is not, not because of some identity you're pushing on them.
People of the Indian subcontinent didn't conquer often out of it because it was hard, not because they had some divine mission of unifying all the """hindus""".
Some Indian empires did expand beyond the Indian subcontinent, and if I recall some of those taht did didn't care about the rest of the Indian subcontinent and went straing outside of it.

>People have identified has Han people for millenia.

False. People in China identified as "Hua" or "Tang people". The oldest record of "Han people" was back in the Yuan dynasty. Back then, "Han people" referred to the inhabitants of northern China, who were KHITANS and JURCHENS, who were foreign invaders who had conquered northern China for centuries by that point. The term "Han Chinese" was only revived in the 20th century for the purpose of agglomerating the vast majority of ethnicities in China into a single monolith.

Doesn't the Han ethnicity come up with the Han dynasty?
I know that the "Han" nowadays are what you described as a "forged single monolith", but the core original Han only came up during the Yuan?

Look at all you trying to act cool

Yes, "Han Chinese" is obviously referring to the "Han dynasty", but historically it was never used to describe the core Chinese ethnicity. The term "Hua people" was used (while "Tang people" was used in southern China), but it was based on cultural affiliation not an ethnic one. So to be frank, "Han Chinese" is a modern term based on historical revisionism.

Nope. One of the definition of 'Hindustan' refers to the area from Afghanistan to all the way to Bengal aka the Sanskrit culture.
The other definition, which is the more common one,includes the entire Indian subcontinent aka both sanskrit and dravidian culture.
How did the mauryans and guptas originate separately or independently of this identity? The cultures, languages, traditions ,religion etc under their reign were well linked to this identity. Why would they claim to be the successor of one another? Heck they don't even belong to the same caste. Mauryans were kshatriyas and Guptas were vaishyas

Ever since 486 my dudes

India is considered a subcontinent because it used to be a separate landmass that crashed into what is today southern china, giving rise to Himalayas. You're right on the part of it being separated, yes. However, it's only hard to traverse on the Chinese border side,not the northwest. There's a reason why it got raided so many times by muslims from central asia yet opposite of this,aka local kings expanding towards that region, never happened despite kingdoms existing as early as 3000 BC . This is because there was never a need to go beyond that. Indian subcontinent remained as an isolated geographical region throughout history prior to the invasion. The exact same case is with China

>One of the definition of 'Hindustan

Exactly, there's no one single "Hindustan", it's whatever people want it to be, and now is used by Indian history revisionists to somehow create a sense of historical unity in a country where there was none, and in a country where the government had to make it illegal to even advocate for secession, while complaining constantly about British opression.

Guptas and Mauryas originate outside hindustan depending on what Hindustan you're talking. A modern one? A contemporary defenition to Mauryans and Guptas? The orignal concept of Hindustan? Did Mauryans and Guptas spoke of Hindustan the same as you? Did they even speak of it? Did they identify themselves as Indians? Is India the same as Hindustan? Are Mauryans or Guptas the same as Hindustan? Is Hindustan the same as India?

OP posted countries that can trace clearly and unequivocally the origin of their states.

India has to jump around from different peoples, languages, cultures, across time, and put them in a box labeled "Hidustan, one the contemporary definitions of it".

You're trying to pass off a loose concept as Hindustan, and then you're trying to equate this loose concept to a series of different peoples with different identities, trying to put them in line so as to lead beautifuly into the modern state of India.
These Mauryans or Guptas didn't give two shits about your India.

The cultures are different, the languages are different, the traditions are different, the religion was kind of the same, and here you have your Hindustan; back to a religious concept like Christendom.

They would claim to be successor of another if they had in mind this ancient Hindustani state you speak of.

The middle kingdom was a constant concept across history, with different dynasties claiming to be inheritors of the title of emperor of the middle kingdom.

No such thing happens in the indian sub-continent.

What the fuck is a country?

>Exactly, there's no one single "Hindustan", it's whatever people want it to be
This is simply false. Throughout history, only 2 definitions have been used. One for the entire Indian subcontinent and the other for only the north India (including present day Pakistan and Afghanistan).
>to somehow create a sense of historical unity in a country where there was none
This only proves your lack of knowledge. It's nothing more than a joke to imply a country that existed as a unified state for 1000-1500 years has no sense of unity at all. Regional differences do not change the fact that the local cultures have been influencing each other for hundreds of years, be it language, food, economy, customs ,faith or anything.
>in a country where the government had to make it illegal to even advocate for secession, while complaining constantly about British opression.
It's illegal in USA as well. Why would any state allow secession to begin with? It means losing a significant part of land. International laws give each country a right for self determination. Maybe it's a foreign concept for someone living in a country as small as Portugal. Regardless, how does any of it remotely correlate to colonial oppression tho?
>Did Mauryans and Guptas spoke of Hindustan the same as you? Did they even speak of it? Did they identify themselves as Indians?
No but once again, their empires comprised of people with similar traditions, customs and cultures despite regional and language differences. Once again, they did identity themselves as hindus as they both have claimed heritage from hindu castes.

ask the un

Konnichiwa friendsu :^)

>OP posted countries that can trace clearly and unequivocally the origin of their states.
Except the name, what else about these countries have remained consistent? They've expanded and also have been conquered. The borders throughout history have been inconsistent. Except China and Japan, most of them didn't even enjoy geographical isolation. The case with China is the exact with that of India. So what exactly separates India?

>You're trying to pass off a loose concept as Hindustan, and then you're trying to equate this loose concept to a series of different peoples with different identities
Different groups of people existing within the same region doesn't mean there is no shared identity. The cultures have been extensively linked to each other. As I previously said, only north east is the part which has existed seperately from the rest of the country.
>trying to put them in line so as to lead beautifuly into the modern state of India.
Again you show your lack of knowledge. That's exactly has what happened. You know people with so different cultures who have no shared identity don't magically decide to create a nation out of nowhere.
>These Mauryans or Guptas didn't give two shits about your India
Yeah they only spent like half of their lives trying to gain over it. I'm sure they gave no shit. Y'know just because it's called India in international platform doesn't mean it's some entirely different place.You can also check out the official name Bharat.
>The cultures are different, the languages are different, the traditions are different, the religion was kind of the same,
The cultures are well linked to one another and have been constantly influenced by each other. Hinduism was a geographical and cultural phenomenon, not a religious one.Languages difference only occur within north and south, northern languages being Indo-European while southern ones being dravidian.

>vi var..

...

Adorable

Dude that's rude, also Japan was united in only in 16 century.

>and here you have your Hindustan; back to a religious concept like Christendom.
If anything, Hindustan is more like Europe. Or do you believe the whole concept of Europe only came up recently with the model of continental division?
>They would claim to be successor of another if they had in mind this ancient Hindustani state you speak of.
Sorry but I have a hard time comprehending this logic. They didn't belong to the same dynasty neither were they of the same caste, why would they claim heritage from one another? All the local yet powerful kingdoms constantly fought to ultimately gain control over the said geographical region. You're yet to explain why these rulers didn't expand outside of the territory when travelling was not difficult in the northwestern side(exactly from where countless islamic raids occurred).
>The middle kingdom was a constant concept across history, with different dynasties claiming to be inheritors of the title of emperor of the middle kingdom.
Once again, how is the case different with Hindustan? These dynasties did not claim heritage from one another (why would they after all). They fought to gain control of the geographical region known as 'middle kingdom'.

It's Iran or Iraq to be honest.

thousand year country here we will soon be known just as earth

Persia completely lost its identity after the islamic conquests unfortunately. There are more Zoroastrians here in India than Iran itself.

Should Italians be invited? Unless you consider the unification to be the anniversary of their nation, they're pretty old desu.

>proving his point

How tho

...

As someone who has Cherokee blood I believe I have the right to be in this thread

there was no unified india before The Empire.

Do I cut it?

wait no my maths a shit, the first polity that conquered my area was estabslished in the 1400's

>Mauryan empire
>Gupta empire
>Delhi sultanate
>Mughal empire
>Maratha Empire

and all of those are long since dead

notice how none of them are called india?

Only when it comes to getting blamed for things that happened a thousand years ago, then Germany is 2000 years old at least

>he thinks we'll last another 20 years

Yeah no buddy, we're adding to the infant death rate of countries.

FIRST nation, get on my level

What do you think Chandragupta called his territory? 'The Gupta empire'?
I only named the dynasties under which India existed as a unified state. They probably called it 'Bharatvarash'

Absolutely false. Han people are definitely different from Khitans and Jurchens. Han people still mean Chinese people. They have distinct lifestyle to the invaders from the north. While Khitans and Jurchens are nomadic people who live in different locations, moving from one place to another in search of grasslands for their animals, Han people are agricultural ethnic who have fixed residence and live self-sufficiently. Also, Han people only wear Hanfu and speak Chinese and have Chinese names, which are different from the northern invaders.

thanks to my ancestors now I can post in this thread

Iran technically began with the Sassanian empire in 224 AD. They, after all, coined the term "Iran-shahr", roughly meaning "Land of Aryans". It has no racial connotations though.

>Persia completely lost its identity after the islamic conquests unfortunately.
It has been called Iran since Sassanian empire, and it was not completely lost. Many rituals and celebrations like Yalda, Chaharshanbe Suri, Nowruz, and so forth were preserved. Also, the national epic called Shahnameh is replete with Zoroastrian symbology.

Claiming my stake on the world's oldest continuous government.

Hello