Can your google-fu find a country/nation that hasn’t ever been invaded, outright taken-over, or occupied by force at some point in its history? We’ll call it “uninvaded”.
Eg: Was Morocco ever invaded? or Mongolia? ( unfortunately, the answer is yes to both of these! Morocco in 1591, and Mongolia in 1919 )
Participants first get 1 point for each country they successfully propose as a possible “uninvaded”, but only if no-one disproves them within a week.
Participants can also get 1 point for every proposed country that they disprove through the facts of History ( and/or wikipedia and/or encyclopedia, etc ). You must be the first to disprove it, in-writing, on the forum. any decent reference will do.
You are essentially stealing the point from the initial participant, not creating another one.
If a proposal survives a week without being disproved, but is later disproved, both parties get a point! ( as the googleing/ research clearly took some effort )
Sorry Sven,
In 1527, during the “Sack of Rome”, Almost the entire Swiss Guard ( that’s the Vatican Guards) was massacred by Imperial troops on the steps of St Peter’s Basilica ( inside of the Vatican). Of 189 guards on duty only the 42 who accompanied the pope survived, and helped the pope escape.
I’m not entirely sure that the “papal states” and “the vatican” are entirely the same thing… but Sirhc beat me to the punch on that one too… by mere seconds… So that’s Sven’s point taken, and given to Sirhc, who now has 2 points!
Greenland… it changed ownership twice, but never by military means, both time it was a paper change (once after the union was dissolved and once on paper to allow previously allied troops there in WW2) . Its big, and cold, and honestly land was never the valuable part, so I claim greenland as one of the few places never actully taken by force (although interestingly it was offered for sale once).
Between 1300 and 1350, the Inuits(Thule) took over the western-settlement areas of Greenland that were previously occupied by the Norse/Vikings, who at that time completely left the island. There is archaeological evidence to support this:
I propose the Principality of Hutt River. Parts of the Australian Government may refuse to recognise its secession, but its residents have had their social security benefits withdrawn and their names removed from the electoral roll, residents are classified by the tax office as non-residents of Australia, and both the Heritage Council of Western Australia and the National Museum of Australia claim it has successfully seceded.
Plus, it’s officially recognised by Google Maps. That totally counts.
Could it be argued the current owners annexed aboriginal land (or even Australian government land) to form hutt river? After all it is located in land that was historically settled by both of these groups, making hutt river goverment the 3rd owners, not the first.
To split more hairs, those previous owners of the land had different names for that area… not the Principality of Hutt River. Technically, the country known as “The Principality of Hutt River” has not been invaded, taken-over or occupied.
But also by that technicality, any “new” country or one that ceased to be without being invaded or taken over is also a potential candidate. You could also claim that the countries known as “South Sudan”, “Belize”, “Montenegro”, “Palau” etc have never been invaded, outright taken-over or occupied by forces representing another nation state… And actually, as I think of the list of countries that appeared after the USSR split, I’m surprised I couldn’t think of a single one that would meet this definition.
Riumplus gets 1 point for Hutt River.
Hamish has suggested two previous owners for Hutt river but in this case I think we need more evidence of actual forced invasion and specifics on any aboriginal culture that resided in that area before we can give it to him. The point stays with riumplus for now
Are talking about the country or the parcel of land?
ie the USA has never been invaded but to stake claim to the land they invaded the Indigenous Americans and became independent from Great Britian after the American Revolutionary war . This could be the same for many countries, but for a country to be named it would have been taken from someone else otherwise such names wouldn’t exist. This is a great quiz though, I also wonder what role the civil war played in defining the USA as uninvaded…
I’m also going to dissalow all riumplus’s technicalities. A “new” country by name is clearly not new and had both people and borders prior so perhaps we should call it a “national identity” or a “geographically identified people of common nation” or something.
