The issue here is when your country first developed as more-or-less recognizably the country it is now. Exclude for the moment violent changes of government, invasions, significant social changes, territorial expansions or contractions, etc.
For some, this would be relatively easy: the USA for instance emerged as a function of the American Revolution. Before the Revolution, there were a bunch of British colonies. After the Revolution, there was a country called the United States. It is true that the US greatly expanded after that, and its nature changed as a result of Civil War and social change, but the country today is still recognizably the same entity.
For others though it will be harder. When did “England” emerge? I read a convincing argument that what we now know of as “England”, although conceived of by Alfred the Great, only truly emerged under his grandson Aethelstan. Before that, there were still various kingdoms within what is now England, of which Alfred was only king of Wessex. No doubt cases can be made for other times.
Canada is a tricky case. You could make good arguments for 1867 (Confederation), 1905 (Alberta and Manitoba join confederation, the last of the big provinces to do so), 1931 (the Statute of Westminster makes Canada’s foreign affairs independent of Britain’s) or 1982 (Canada adopted its current Constitution).
On one hand, we got the name from the Carthaginians, for the whole Iberian Peninsula. Our next waves of colonizers (Greeks and Romans) just took up the Carthaginian name, but later the Goth Kingdom which covered the whole Peninsula until the Muslim invasion broke it up is usually called Kingdom of Toledo: one of the cultural changes that took place during the Middle Ages is that realms moved from being known by the name of their capital to being known by one referring to the whole realm.
By the 16th century, Spain and Portugal were considered two separate entities even through the reign of Felipe II, who was king of the whole Peninsula albeit as a personal union, one King with multiple Crowns and a matching colection of numerals.
The Crown of Aragon was absorbed wholesale by that of Castille as a consequence of the War of Succession (early 18th century) but Navarre and Castille didn’t officially merge and found the Kingdom of Spain until 1841.
Sure, but I think the OP’s angling at identifying the point at which a given country became “a country” as opposed to say… a collection of provinces in Roman Gaul, or a warring set of Frankish dukedoms.
In the case of the Philippines, I’d think it’s one of two points in history- when the Spanish consolidated rule of the Phillippines, or when the Phillippines gained independence after WWII from the US.
That would be the 1946 granting of independence. The Spaniards may have occupied most of the islands but they never really delineated a potential or de facto nation. It was the Filipino revolutionaries to defined it, and this was adopted by the Americans. Darn pale faces even invented a non-combative national hero for us, just to keep our minds off starting another revolution.
Kingdom of Hawaii: Created by the unification of the islands under King Kamehameha I in 1810; overthrown in 1893, ending the reign of Queen Lili’uokalani, by sugar plantation owners and merchants.
California Republic: Established June 14, 1846; lasted until July 9, 1846 at which time it became part of the United States.
ETA: I see strong parallels in these two cases. Both were driven by American commercial interests.
As an interesting aside, an Irish politician said a while ago that that makes us one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world. My first reaction to this was that she was talking nonsense, but thinking about it,when you apply the continuous qualifier it may actually be somewhat accurate. Any country occupied by the Nazis, for example, isn’t continuous. That makes us older than France.
Um, should we discount the American Revolution, or the Civil War? I hope so – I don’t want to give my slaves any dangerous ideas about so-called freedom.
Denmark. Around 900-1000. Nothing much changed since then. Got a bit bigger, then smaller. Got some new forms of governments along the way, which were just the same as the old governments. Although more expensive.
Finland - in 1809 when we ceased to be eastern part of Sweden and started being the Grand Duchy of Finland as a part of Russia. Sure it took over 100 years after that to get proper independence but that’s when we got roughly our current borders.
You didn’t even mention the Act of Union 1840, which is when I’d say it became “Canada” in the sense that term currently means it.
Was Canada not recognizably Canada in 1981? Of course not. 1930? No? 1904? No. 1866, you have a case, and 1839, you have a case, so I’d say 1840 and 1867 are the two big contenders.
See, I don’t really understand this answer. In 1921, Ireland was rather distinctly Ireland. It was called “Ireland” on maps and people from there were called “Irish.” The status of its sovereignty does not mean it wasn’t IRELAND.
Yes, the question is unclear, I’m afraid, just like the other thread going on about the oldest country.
Malthus, are you asking about constitutional structure, or are you asking about recognisable national identity? They’re not necessarily the same thing.
France is a good example. If you go by constitutional structure, France only reached it’s current form with the enactment of the Fifth Republic in 1958. But that just doesn’t make sense: France has been a nation-state for centuries, with a French identity that even predates the idea of nation-states. (Plus I’ve lost track of the number of constitutions France has had.)