# world oldest army? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 30, 2001, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603 "2001-09-30T06:28:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/21 "2013-12-01T16:27:33Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > In any case, why would political things affect whether a military unit or army continues? Well, I was just responding to the claim that had been made that there was no government with executive power in existence today which goes back to the time we’re discussing. That’s all, so cool it. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/22 "2013-12-01T16:44:55Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > This is not true. From a constitutional perspective, the British government dates back to times considerably earlier than 1503. > [@sailor](#): > > This (zombie) question is one of those where you can get any answer you want as correct depending on how you qualify the question. Quite. I am pickier than some about what qualifies as continuity. The argument about Britain is completely reasonable given that the Protectorate was treated constitutionally as if it hadn’t occurred. I’m just not inclined to agree with it, because it _did_ occur ;). The Swiss argument would work, except what constitutes the Swiss government has in fact varied over time. Switzerland as a _unitary_ country was only established in 1848 when individual cantons were forbidden to wage war on their own. San Marino was only recognized as independent in 1631. And so on. You can slice, dice and parse history in any number of ways to arrive at an answer that pleases you ( or me ), but at the end of the day I’m not sure you can arrive at a single incontrovertible, universally recognized answer to the OP. Someone will always disagree. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/23 "2013-12-01T16:50:57Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I consider the US to have adopted a fundamentally new form of government in 1971, when the Post Office was demoted from Cabinet status. Indeed. You young’uns probably don’t even remember _St. Dapicale_, once the mnemonic for Cabinet posts, and _almost_ in order of their succession to the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/24 "2013-12-01T17:30:28Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Cromwell in the UK does not count because the monarchy was restored? Well, in Spain the monarchy has been restored. > > Is the UK the same today as it was before the union? If so how so? If not why not? > ! Not going to argue about the National Guard, but in the UK, Cromwell’s New Model Army was significantly different than the English or Scottish armies before it, and somewhat different (although not entirely) than the armies that followed it. It differed in composition, in motive, in logistics, in structure, etc. So, you can draw the line there. Or, of course, you could draw the line later, as the United Kingdom itself didn’t exist until 1707, and, consequentially didn’t have an army until then, but that might be quibbling. ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/25 "2013-12-01T17:30:50Z")
> [@puk](#): > > I thought the Swiss Guard was the Vatican’s primary army. Did the swiss guard ever fight a battle? (perhaps during the many strugles for the papal seat?) Prior to the 1880’s, the Pope was the ruler of an actual territory, the Papal States. The Papal States had its own military units just any any other country. In the 1880’s, the Italian army marched on and conquer Rome, previously governed by the Pope. The Papal armies put up a modest fight, with casualties, to emphasize that this was a hostile take over. The Swiss Guard, I believe, only ever guarded the Vatican, even then a distinct entity within Rome, and was not involved in defending the Papal States or Rome itself. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/26 "2013-12-01T17:50:58Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > … but that might be quibbling. Quibbling is all we do here. I am always amused by some titles of military units which only serve to imply some tenuous continuity with ages past. Like “cavalry” units which have not seen a horse in nearly a century. But hey, if you want the oldest permanent military unit in the world I just found it: [Spain’s King’s Immemorial Infantry Regiment](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regimiento_de_Infanter%C3%ADa_Inmemorial_del_Rey_n.%C2%BA_1) Oldest in the world, dating back to 1248. Wikipedia says it so it must be true. > [@](#): > > El Regimiento de Infantería Inmemorial del Rey n.º 1 es una unidad militar española perteneciente al Ejército español, siendo la unidad militar permanente más antigua del mundo. Activa 1248 – actualidad ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/27 "2013-12-02T02:02:06Z")
> [@runningdude](#): > > Prior to the 1880’s, the Pope was the ruler of an actual territory, the Papal States. The Papal States had its own military units just any any other country. In the 1880’s, the Italian army marched on and conquer Rome, previously governed by the Pope. The Papal armies put up a modest fight, with casualties, to emphasize that this was a hostile take over. > > The Swiss Guard, I believe, only ever guarded the Vatican, even then a distinct entity within Rome, and was not involved in defending the Papal States or Rome itself. Not to mention they’re mercenaries. ---
**Author:** ![dogbutler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dogbutler/32/428_2.png) [@dogbutler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dogbutler)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/28 "2013-12-02T06:09:09Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Not to mention they’re mercenaries. [Pope Carl Spacker]They’ll be no money, but on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness[/Pope Carl Spacker] ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/29 "2013-12-02T09:05:37Z")
> [@dogbutler](#): > > [Pope Carl Spacker]They’ll be no money, but on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness[/Pope Carl Spacker] So they got that going for them, which is nice. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/30 "2013-12-02T15:49:07Z")
Sweden has maintained a standing army since 1521, with no Cromwell-type space in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/31 "2013-12-02T17:19:56Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Or, of course, you could draw the line later, as the United Kingdom itself didn’t exist until 1707, and, consequentially didn’t have an army until then, but that might be quibbling. I don’t think that is quibbling at all. If a country changes so significantly or becomes a new country I can’t see as how the army could be considered the same. Its governing rules and laws will be different even if the personnel don’t change much. I don’t think that being able to trace lineage back through different units and governments is the same as being “the oldest.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/32 "2013-12-02T18:03:06Z")
I don’t know that the union of 1707 was that significant a change. The vast majority of the population of the UK is in England and always has been. If annexing new territory is a disqualifier then pretty much every country is disqualified (including the US.) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/33 "2013-12-02T20:06:17Z")
I note our friend Pittman3 has left the room. More interested in spreading glurge than in fighting ignorance it seems. > [@Loach](#): > > I don’t think that is quibbling at all. If a country changes so significantly or becomes a new country I can’t see as how the army could be considered the same. Its governing rules and laws will be different even if the personnel don’t change much. I don’t think that being able to trace lineage back through different units and governments is the same as being “the oldest.” So what is the difference with when America acquired a bunch of new states in the 20th century? You have to laugh at all the “qualifications” to make something #1. The longest bridge in the world (longest span, over the sea, suspension, built with corrugated reinforced injected concrete). ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/34 "2013-12-02T20:52:08Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I note our friend Pittman3 has left the room. More interested in spreading glurge than in fighting ignorance it seems. > > So what is the difference with when America acquired a bunch of new states in the 20th century? > > You have to laugh at all the “qualifications” to make something #1. The longest bridge in the world (longest span, over the sea, suspension, built with corrugated reinforced injected concrete). Its not like there is an official rule. But adding states in no way made the US a different country. Same Constitution, same system of government. I would say that tracing the Army back to the militia doesn’t count (for this discussion). Anything before open rebellion and the Continental Army would be part of the British colonial system. Even though some units can in fact trace their lineage further back. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/35 "2013-12-02T20:58:52Z")
So did adding Scotland make England a different country? ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/36 "2013-12-02T21:02:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The vast majority of the population of the UK is in England and always has been. That’s not really true. At the time of the Act of Union (1801), England had barely more than half of the UK population. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/37 "2013-12-02T21:05:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So did adding Scotland make England a different country? England of course continued to exist, but it no longer has an army. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/38 "2013-12-02T21:08:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So did adding Scotland make England a different country? Are you asking if there is a difference between England and the United Kingdom? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/39 "2013-12-02T22:12:39Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Its not like there is an official rule. But adding states in no way made the US a different country. Same Constitution, same system of government. I would say that tracing the Army back to the militia doesn’t count (for this discussion). Anything before open rebellion and the Continental Army would be part of the British colonial system. Even though some units can in fact trace their lineage further back. So a change in the Constitution would do it? There have been a few of those too. Why does the civil war and the emancipation of slaves not count? It is a much more profund change than the union of England and Scotland. On the other hand, England and Scotland had separate parliaments and decided to combine them. Everything else pretty much continued the same. Same king, same army. Again, I am just playing devil’s advocate. It has already been established beyond doubt that the oldest unit is the Spanish Immemorial _\__ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603/40 "2013-12-02T22:33:25Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Are you asking if there is a difference between England and the United Kingdom? I’m asking if there is one that’s more significant than the United States and the United States plus the Louisiana Purchase and/or Mexican War gains. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/world-oldest-army/84603.md?page=3)