Switzerland, founded in 1291, same type of government since then.
Wasn’t the Russian Federation part of the Soviet Union?
Yahbut, although it was the dominant element in the USSR, Russia was not an independent nation in the 1917-91 period, any more than Georgia or Ukraine were.
Rune, Denmark and Japan are the two contenders for longest continuous monarchy, and which one wins depends entirely on the criteria you use for evaluating the claims. However, based on the consensus criteria in use in this thread, there was this little matter of that visit by a whole bunch of German tourists in May 1940. 
Why on earth would you discount Australia? 1901 - 2005 is definitely a century of continual, stable government, no matter how you calculate it.
I’m also not sure I buy the continual form of government criteria. What I would consider better (although it’s certainly more subjective) is a continual sense of identity as a country. Under that definition, I think Egypt has it.
But ten or fifteen years ago, when TheLoadedDog read that, it wasn’t a century.
And I think that by any criterion (as long as you don’t require a democracy, which the OP didn’t), the Vatican has the US beat, so the US Civil War is only moot (of course, there are criteria by which other countries beat the Vatican, too).
Except that the Vatican was not a sovereign state between 1870 and 1929. The Kingdom of Italy took over the Papal States in 1870, and there was no recognition of a separate sovereign state of the Vatican. That didn’t come until the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So Vatican City, as a sovereign state, must be dated to then. While the Pope continued to exercise spiritual authority, he had no recognized authority over any physical territory between 1870 and 1929.
That’s a pretty generous interpretation of history. The cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden were part of the Holy Roman Empire when they signed an agreement in 1291 to work together if any outsiders invaded and it was 1315 before they actually got any recognition. The “Old Federation” was founded in 1353 which is when something resembling modern Switzerland began. But if was 1499 before they got their de facto independance and 1648 before they got their de jure independance from the Empire. Then there was the Helvetic Republic from 1798 to 1815 when France occupied Switzerland. The current Swiss government dates from the constitution of 1848 (which was revised in 1874 and 1891).
In that case, I conceed the point. As you say, we’re not considering spiritual authority, here.
I do have a suspicion, though, that the champion (by whatever set of criteria we eventually agree to) will not be someone so big they could fight off invaders, but someone small enough that nobody ever wanted them.
The Incan empire arguably ceased to exist when Pizarro had the Emporer executed.
The Mayan empire ceased to exist before the Europeons arrived, sometime during the middle ages.
The Aztec Empire was ended by Cortez.
Wikpedia tells me Quechuan is a language grouping, not a country.
In all cases, none of these are countries still in existance.
Madagascar?
Bigger than Vietnam and just like Vietnam, invaded and conquered by France at the end of the 19th century ;).
Besides Madagascar only began to be unified in the early 19th century and in fact I think the process wasn’t quite finished before the French conquest.
- Tamerlane
He said oldest not coldest .
Thanks for correcting me. I thought Switzerland celebrated her 700th anniversary in 1991.
I believe they in fact did, dating the Confederation to the bond created by Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden. But that’s much like the U.K. commemorating the Battle of Hastings or the U.S. Independence Day (which actually commemorates the promulgation of the engrossed copies of the Declaration of Independence adopted two days previously). Switzerland with the boundaries we know it today dates from 1815; the Swiss Confederation as a government, from 1848. Depending on the criteria with which you want to argue it, “Switzerland” could be figured from any of those dates, or the others mentioned in the earlier post.
BTW, referencing a much earlier post in this thread, “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” dates from 1922, not 1800.
Mayan are still around- there are about six million of them. Although their government was pretty thoroughly shattered, they are still quite distinctly Mayan. They speak Mayan languages, eat Mayan food, practice the Mayan religion (often mixed with or hidden under the guise of Catholicism) and identify as separate from the Mestizo/Spanish dominant culture. The still identify along tribal lines which date back to pre-Colombian city state boundaries. They fight together as a group that considers themselves politically separate from their host nations. They have a strong, continuous culture and deeply resent being called a lost culture- especially given that people have been trying for centuries and continue today to break their Mayan identity, ruin their social structures, destroy their religion, marginalize their language and subjugate them as people.
That said, they’ve been dominated by just about everyone from fruit companies to death squads in the last couple hundred years, so they don’t win the “world’s oldest nation” title.
I don’t think this criterion makes much sense. What do you mean by “the same system of government”? The system of government in the UK changed a lot since Cromwell. According to your criterion France would be “born” in 1958, with the adoption of the last constitution. However, there are vastly less differences in the french system of government in 1957 compared to today than in the post-Cromwell system of government compared to the current british system.
I think trying to establish a clearly defined criterion is pointless. The inaccurate usual criterion “some sort of political or cultural continuity, sometimes interrupted for a couple years or a couple centuries, in very roughly the same territory or at least part of it, preferably with actual periods of independance from time to time” actually makes much more sense. A country is an abstract concept. French and British citizens alike think that their country existed 1000 years ago and that it’s still the same country. American citiens thinks their country was born when the colonies became independant. Most people everywhere would agree. That’s good enough for me. Trying to inject some arbitrary criterion like yours can only gives silly results (France came into existence in 1957, Taiwan and the former Chinese republic are the same country, the current british system is the same than in the 18th century, etc…) that would make people laugh.
Of course, I think the OP’s question can’t be answered because the concept of country is extremely blurred. But by trying to define it, what you’re doing is answering a completely different question like for instance “What’s the country with the oldest, never deeply modified since it has been adopted, written, and never interrupted or suspended (by an invasion or revolution) constitutionnal system ?”
Vikings are still around – there are about 17 million of them. Although their government was pretty thoroughly shattered, they are still quite distinctly Viking. They speak Viking languages, eat Viking food, practice Viking religion (well some of them do) and identify as separate from the neighboring larger cultures. The still identify along tribal lines which date back to pre-Christian times. Etc.
Nitpick : the new constitution wasn’t adopted in accordance with the former one. France had more than a dozen constitutions since the revolution, and not once a constitutionnal change took place according to the rules of the previous constitution.
France wanted it and got it…