Although Syria broke away from the UAR in 1961, Egypt continued to refer to itself by that name for ten years afterwards.
Correction: the Federation of Malaya actually lasted 15 years, though the U.N. membership only lasted for six.
See in regards the difference between state and nation. 
Not actually relevant, per the OP. If it were, then China wouldn’t qualify either as it was conquered by the Mongols.
How is this relevant? How many English can read Chaucer? Have not Egyptians referred to themselves as Egyptians for thousands of years?
No, the Egyptians didn’t refer to themselves as Egyptians, any more than the Greeks called themselves Greeks.
There are a few distinctions to be made here. One is ethnicity/nationality. There were Hellenes in Greece for a long time, 2500 years or more. The other is the earliest example of a unified state of that nationality. Greece wasn’t unified until Phillip of Macedon conquered all of it. The other is the oldest continuous self-government. Greece only got that with in 1829 with indepedence from the Ottoman empire, after having been a province of this or that empire for 2000 years. But there have been many changes in government since then, monarchies, republics, German occupation, military juntas. So the current government of Greece was only established in 1974.
So, how old is “Greece”? Does it date back to Homer and the Achaens? Phillip of Macedon? 1829? 1974? The new constitution of 1995?
And the other, which needs to be restated, is the distinction between nationality/government. Obviously the Greeks had a different government at the time, but they still perceived themselves as a nation, a nation subjugated by foreigners.
Didn’t we already establish the difference on the Pro-China side? When the Mongols conquered China, was there no longer the same nation during the ~76 years they were ruled? Same with the Greeks. Same with the Egyptians.
from UDS
So are you saying he is wrong, or is it only right for your side, but it doesn’t count for those proposing other nations may be as old?
Modern Greek is different enough from ancient Greek that the two are not mutually comprehensible. The modern Greek speakers in my ancient Greek class had an easier time of it, but they still needed a class to be able to read even the shortest of documents. I’m given to understand this is substantially the case for modern/ancient Hebrew, as well, although to a lesser extent.
On the other hand, some Egyptians (with special training, one assumes, since it’s a dead language since the 17th c.) can read Coptic, which is a direct descendent of the same Egyptian language that was written in hieroglyphs.
No, I’m saying that the question could be answered in several ways depending on how you define the question. Is Great Britain today the same state as the state created in 1066? What about the kingdoms that existed before 1066? Was the United States created in 1776 with the DoI, or 1787 with the constitution, or 1865 with the end of the civil war, or 1959 when Hawaii became a last state? Probably 1776 or 1787 would be the best choices, since most of the country didn’t lose continuity of Government during the Civil war, and the addition of territories like Alaska and Hawaii only increased the size of the country, they didn’t create a new country that encompassed both the old territory and the new territory. But then, did the union of England and Scotland create a new country? Much more arguable that it did.
Problem is, there’s no evidence for the existence of a Japanese nation either. Not only did the Ainu people occupy much of northern Honshu as well as Hokkaido, there was an ethnically Japanese people called the Emishi in eastern Honshu and another ethnically Japanese tribe called the Kumaso in Kyushu. The tribe which eventually won out, probably assimilating the other two and driving the Ainu out of Honshu, eventually became the Japanese nation; but this process wasn’t complete until about 800 CE. Before 400 CE it’s certainly meaningless to talk of a Japanese nation; there were several nations, none of which had control over the whole country. They didn’t think of themselves as a single nation, which is an essential requirement to be one.
What’s the difference between a “class” to read Ancient Greek and “special training” to read Coptic? I’m not sure what point you’re making here.
My point is that the continuity isn’t perfect in Greece and it’s possible in Egypt too. Language continuity isn’t always as simple as it seems.
Interesting thread. Very interesting.
Seeing as how interpretation of boundaries/government/style of government/language/identity can be factored in, where would the Persians fit in? I remember a number of years ago I tended bar at a restaurant run by an Iranian immigrant. But nobody dared refer to him as Iranian. If that were to happen, he would immediately correct you by saying he was Persian. That wasn’t the only case I’ve seen where someone from Iran called themselves Persian.
So would that be a valid suggestion?
Brainainia wasn’t around for more than a few weeks, right?
I don’t know that that’s true of Egypt. Although the place has been conquered an awful lot over the millennia, I don’t think any of the conquests ever resulted in a wholesale replacement of the local population the way it happened here in America. Of course Egypt became an “Arab nation” after the Arab conquest, but I believe that was largely a question of the existing population adopting the Arabic language (and eventually a cultural identity as “Arabs”) rather than the people of the thinly populated Arabian peninsula physically displacing the native population of the Nile Valley, which has been densely populated since the dawn of history.
Oddly, it outlasted Anvilania.
But the Mongols took on Chineses government & social structures.
They had to! They couldn’t run China any other way.
But nobody was Pharaoh after Rome reduced it to a province.
And the early Coptic Christians erased the old gods & faith of Egypt.
And if anything of Old Egypt survived that, the Moslems trashed it.
Even the written language had been eliminated. If we hadn’t located the Rosetta Stone, we wouldn’t be able to read one single inscription.
So, there is a difference.
That isn’t true of Turkey. The language was brought in from Central Asia by a relatively small group of people, and the Ottomans imported European boys from the Balkans, but the population of Turkey is still largely genetically descended from the ancient Anatolian population that’s always been there. That’s why most of them look Middle Eastern or Mediterranean rather than Asian. Since Turkish nationalism took over in the 1920s, the modern Turks have embraced their Anatolian ancestry and claimed descent from both the Hittites (which is a slam dunk) and the Sumerians (very dubious).
I also think it isn’t true of the Egyptians. It took centuries of a slow, gradual process before the Coptic-speaking Egyptian population all spoke Arabic. Only the ruling classes changed in Egyptian history. There were never any mass deportations or immigrations.
I read somewhere that the working-class population of the Trastevere quarter of Rome is descended from the original ancient Roman plebeians. I think this is a reliable pattern in history. Whenever nationality changes, the aristocratic stratum is replaced. The masses of peasants and proletarians stay pretty much the same. They’re just there to be ordered around by the ruling classes, so who cares about them (as long as they don’t rise in rebellion…) There have been cases in history where a ruler ordered an entire country depopulated and replaced by people of his own choosing, but it hasn’t happened very often, I think.
Another problem is when we say “the Hittites” we’re thinking of the rulers who made all those monuments, inscriptions, and libraries that we know them by. This was the work of the top 1% or so of society. The masses of common people from whom present-day Turks are descended aren’t our usual referent when we think of “the Hittites.” But they could be considered Hittites too, if we thought about them.
It’s like ancient statues were said to be polychrome painted but all we see is bare stone or terra cotta. The finer, delicate aspects of the art were eroded away over time, leaving only the underlying mass of hard material. Populations remain oevr time like that too.
As I said before, Coptic IS Egyptian, just (mostly) adapted to the Greek alphabet. The language was spoken into the 17th century and is still a liturgical language today. And Egypt did not cease being Egypt when it was taken over administratively by the Romans. It maintained a distinct identity.
I’ve heard that Ethipoia was mentioned in the Bible, I guess as Abyssinia, so that’s pretty old.
Vietnam kicked out the Chinese in AD 939 and has kicked butt on every single army since then.
As for shortest, I know the Republic of Texas lasted less than 10 years, from March 2, 1836, to December 29, 1845, when it entered the Union. The UK was the first country to recognize it, even sending an ambassador. Texas wanted to enter the Union straight after winning its revolution, but back then, states could only enter in pairs: one slave state and one free state. There was not a free state ready at that time to counterbalance Texas, so it had to wait. Iowa was the eventual counterbalance, entering the Union a day short of a year after Texas did.