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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Oldest in the world, dating back to 1248. Wikipedia says it so it must be true.
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]
So they got that going for them, which is nice.
Sweden has maintained a standing army since 1521, with no Cromwell-type space in the middle.
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.”
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.)
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.
So did adding Scotland make England a different country?
That’s not really true. At the time of the Act of Union (1801), England had barely more than half of the UK population.
England of course continued to exist, but it no longer has an army.
Are you asking if there is a difference between England and the United Kingdom?
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 _
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.