Longest- and shortest-lived nations?

Still, under that criterion I don’t think China goes back as far as people are saying.

I believe that the current boundaries of China are relatively new, certainly no older than the Mongol conquest (which was a long time ago, AD1271 I believe, but still not going back to BC).

China definitely hasn’t had continuity of government. Also, Japan controlled large parts of China before and during World War II.

China during WWII still existed, with a government on the run.

Mongolian conquest is trickier to handle. Basically, the Mongols took over and ruled as if China was their own country. They did not, however, quite do the same as, say, certain European countries (England, e.g.) where the country remained the same but new rulers took over.

There were three governments in power during World War II in various regions of China: The Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-Shek (the official government recognized by most nations), the Communist government of Mao Tse-Tung in power in the center of the nation (which would defeat the Nationalist government in 1949 and force it to Taiwan, where it remains today), and the Japanese puppet government under Wang Jingwei (those portions of China under Japanese control).

I think that doesn’t invalidate China as the oldest: it was just a time when there was a dispute over who was the official government. That has happened to many countries – e.g., the US, the UK, France, etc. – but doesn’t mean the country as a political unit ceases to exist.

Back to Zanzibar as shortest – it was officially recognized by most other countries and the UN; most shorter-lived governments were not.

the easiest way to define “nation” is to check whether the current residents still see themselves as the direct descendants of the original inhabitants.
Go to the national museum in any country.
Nobody in Egypt can read heiroglyphics, but the Chinese, Israelis, and Greeks can all read 2000 year old documents and feel an emotional and cultural connection to them.

Two possible contenders: Sweden and Samaritans.

Swedes, a recognized nationality occupying a fixed plot of land, go back three, five or ten thousand years depending on who you ask. They’ve allied/merged with other neighboring countries at varying times in their history, but retained their identities and lands through these periods. Most Swedes live within a few miles of where their distant ancestors lived; few Americans can make that claim.

I read “somewhere” (that is, I don’t remember where and can’t find it online, but I swear it was a reputable source, maybe the Washington Post) that the oldest recognized nationality in the world is that of Samaritans. There is no nation-state of Samaria, but to enjoy this nationality, a person has to be born in Israel, have two Samaritan parents, and recognize some small, specific number of books in the Old Testament. Currently, about 700 people qualify.

What western democracies recognize as “countries” don’t functionally exist in much of the world. The governments of Sierra Leone and Afghanistan can hardly be said to control all or most of the territory that all those colorful grade school maps say they have. I can’t think of a solid definition of “nation-state” that credibly applies to all the signatories of the UN, for instance.

Carpatho-Ukraine declared independence in 1939 (from the remnants of Czechoslovakia after Hitler had gobbled what he wanted) and was annexed by Hungary the next day. I don’t know if it was recognised by anybody else in that time period.

Well, that leaves out most Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans (black and white), Canadians, Turks, and everyone presently in the Caribbean…

Where are these gay islands?

mm

As well as everybody in Spain. Would the Irish still qualify? Them celts were a bunch of immigrants, that they were…

A young lady of my acquaintance, half-Irish and half-Vietnamese, said she wished she was “purely” one or the other. I tried to explain to her that there was no “pure” Irish race, that we were a combination of Celts and pretty much every nationality that could build boats, and as for the Vietnamese, there might be a reason the place was once called “Indo-China.” She didn’t think that was very funny, though.

I was going to list Mexicans and Central/South Americans on my earlier post, but most Latin Americans are Mestizos with at least some Indian blood.

As for everyone in Spain–probably not the Basque, however large a population they comprise.

Dunnow, my 32-basque-lastnames Dad and uncles are all blonde and light-eyed and I’m told that might indicate a Viking managed to slip a -sen in the over-32-lastnames…

plus we have stories of arriving here and the strife caused when Aitor’s youngest 4 sons married girls from the tribes they’d conquered/kicked out. (Aitor is one of those patriarch names which curiously happen to mean patriarch)

The Coral Sea Islands have Teh Gay, apparently.

The issue is whether a people are descended at all from the people who lived there millennia ago, not whether they were descended from them exclusively. Most Americans, Egyptians and Turks have no blood ties to the people who lived there circa 3000 BC, whereas most Basque, Swedes, Ainu and Inuit probably do. It’s a standard most of us can’t meet, and shouldn’t factor into any practical definition of “nationhood.”

Which was kind of my point. After all, while Dad was “from Pamplona since before the town was founded” (which actually means that 31 of those lastnames were from a couple hundred miles away, as local incest taboos are stronger than in most other places), Mom wasn’t, yet I’m 100% Navarrese. Not 100% blood-Basque. And?

Hispania as a geographic location has existed at least since the time of the Punic war. Was it any kind of nation at the time? No. Were the Basque of the time a nation? Of the tribal variety, yes. But so were the Celts, Iberians, Lusitanians et al, all of whom were perfectly happy to take their neighbor’s daughters as wives…

Of Pamplona’s three medieval burgos, one was inhabited mostly by Basque-speaking locals; one by non-Basque speaking locals; one by immigrants. Are the descendants of people who lived in San Cernin or Los Franceses less “from Pamplona the whole life” (the literal translation) than my Navarrería Dad or less Navarrese than me? Not according to any Navarrese I know.

And the people who grumble that I’m not Basque enough usually grumble pretty low once I start reciting Dad’s lastnames; most of them are less blood-Basque than me :smiley:

The japanese themselves consider China as older, from what I’ve heard (perhaps one of our “locals” can inform us better). That would make China the winner for older, I think.

Wikipedia has a page of Short-lived states.

I was thinking of Biafra, but it appears that lasted some three years.

I vote for the Republic of Hatay.

There’s no reliable evidence for the existence of a Japanese state before about 400 CE. The traditional histories say the first Emperor’s reign began in 660 BCE but nobody really believes that any more. But even using this date, China is older by far.

I’ve tried checking a list of current and former members of the U.N. (which I figure constitutes the gold standard for international recognition) and rivals with Zanzibar for short-lived include the United Arab Republic (just under four years) and the Federation of Malaya (six years).