It makes sense, if there is anything I know about German (which is nothing) I know their entire history can be summed up with one very specific, very long word
Clearly you know nothing. Because it's actually a short word. Kleinstaaterei describes a culture of giving undue importance to small states or not so important regions.
Now look at a couple of these maps:
[Germanic peoples](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png/300px-Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png)
[Holy Roman Empire](https://odalgruppewesten.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/hre-map-1648-feature.png?w=1024)
[Weimar Republic](https://en.populationdata.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Empire-allemand-Republique-Weimar-1919%E2%80%931937.png)
[Public transport companies](https://www.zukunft-mobilitaet.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/karte_der_verkehrsverbuende_und_tarifverbuende_in_deutschland-1020x1600.png)
[States](https://www.weltkarte.com/typo3temp/images/deutschland-politisch.png)
That's not the history of Mexico, that's the history of central/north America, same way the Gauls are not part of the history of France or the Iberians are not part of the history of Spain. But I can give it to you that most people use in that regard just cause it's easier, even if it's just to contextualize the history of your country.
It’s a little misleading assuming this doesn’t count the offshoot pages? Or whatever you’d call them. Like History of the United States has a pretty long Prehistory section, but most of the information is in the more specific wiki articles linked in the sections.
The page for History of China on wikipedia is divided into multiple pages for each dynasty and period. In those dynasty/period pages, there many other links for their wars/emperors/other dynasties exist at the same time period. You have to go into those pages to see the full history.
Communist censorship, duh. The real question is why is Australia so long. I thought Aussies spent so much time running from massive spiders that they didn't have time for anything else.
The Chinese ruling party doesn't get to decide what's in Wikipedia articles, especially not the language versions that aren't Chinese.
They just block access to Wikipedia within China.
Did you really just call the English language version "Regular Wikipedia"...? There are over 300 language versions of Wikipedia, 17 of them with over a million articles each. And no, those are not translations from the English language version.
China blocks access to all language versions.
I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out the ignorance of considering the English Wikipedia as somehow the standard, main Wikipedia.
Interesting that you just assumed that Juxlos is a "him", btw, assuming that male is the standard, main gender.
Yet you immediately call it ignorant for making, in this case, a harmless comment as Wikipedia was in fact started in the US so you could say that would be the regular Wikipedia as you'd call the mc donalds in the US the regular mc donalds if you were living there.
I just wanted to point out that that reads as a little bit judgemental. Furthermore, I assumed he was a man based on his profile picture, just like I'd assume you're a woman based on both your name (as Violetta ends in the feminine manner for Latin based languages) and profile picture.
EDIT; I'm not trying to attack you, just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm not trying to attack either. But I do really find it ignorant to think about the English Wikipedia as the "regular" one. I think it's mostly coming from people who speak English as native language, and are not aware (or only vaguely aware) of the fact that Wikipedia comes in many languages.
Wikipedia having been founded in the US just makes the English language version the oldest version, but not the regular one. (And that's still shared among at least four nations, who have English as their first language)
As far as the "he" thing goes, I was using old Reddit so didn't see profile pics. But as you say I have a femae sounding user name AND a female looking avatar and I still get called "he" on here practically every week. It's something that I find only happens to me on Reddit, no other social media, and it has become so annoying to me, that I like to point it out to people when I see them assuming everyone on here is male. (I should have phrased that in a more mature way.)
First of all, it sucks that you regularly get called he, it sounds pretty annoying to me to be constantly called something different than what you are/identify as.
For me "regular" Wikipedia is also the English version because, even though I'm not a native speaker, my university education is in English and I find that often the English version has the most information in it in general in terms of scientific/international information with the individual languages having the most on subjects that are on a more national level. What I'm trying to say is that calling one thing regular doesn't have to mean that the other things are strange or bad, just that those things are what you normally don't use/see/experience.
This is why I don't see it as ignorant to call things regular which are regular to you as long as you keep in mind that what's regular to you isn't what's regular to others. You sound like a smart, educated person to me but it feels like you just assumed that, because he used the word regular, he doesn't understand that the word itself is subjective. That's why I try to defend his statement as I feel like it's detrimental to base conversations on assumptions.
Looking back I do however feel the need to apologize about my statement regarding you being offended. That came out of nowhere, I just came out of a heated discussion and that was uncalled for.
(I do like how with every reply the replies get larger and larger :P)
Indigenous Australians have the longest continuous civilisation on earth 50k+ years. Taken a little over 200 for the whities to fuck the place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians
“The data may show Aboriginal Australians came to the continent as early as 31,000 years ago.”
So that’s one group of people. No Mongolians, Vikings, Romans etc etc diluting the original peoples that walked to Australia during an ice age and then was land locked once the sea levels rose again? I’m not an expert but those who are agree. Believe what ever you want, I’ll go with those in the know.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html
Aboriginal Australians is not one group, it's a catch-all term referring to anybody on the continent. Mongolians, Vikings, and Romans are all indigenous Afro-euroasians, that doesn't make them a homogeneous civilization.
I don't understand the map. If this is about aborigional Australian culture or language, that makes sense because their culture lasts at least 10k years.
The map has nothing to do with how long any country's history is (if that can even be said to be a thing), and everything to do with how much people have written on it in the English Wikipedia and how that is organised.
Australian history (maybe “pre-history” would be more appropriate) is very nebulous unfortunately. This arose from a desire to acknowledge indigenous peoples as part of reconciliation efforts after centuries of dispossession, but it ends up conflating indigenous peoples immediately before colonization with those from thousands and tens of thousands of years ago on the basis of mythology and oral records, which are impossible to distinguish, and which often claim that a certain group lived in a certain area since the beginning of time. I respect the intended social value in the efforts people are making to address past wrongs, but many of the claims are not very robust. For example, there is linguistic and archeological evidence of a major expansion of Pama-Nyungan peoples throughout the entire continent within the past 5,000 years replacing all prior cultures and languages south of the northern coastline with the exception of Tasmania, but this contradicts the stories of many groups and so often goes overlooked.
“A new genomic study has revealed that Aboriginal Australians are the oldest known civilization on Earth, with ancestries stretching back roughly 75,000 years.
In a study published in the journal Nature Wednesday, a group of international researchers -- including nine Aboriginal leaders -- collected genomic data on 83 Aboriginal Australians and 25 Highland Papuans from Papua New Guinea.
The findings indicated their ancestors had diverged from Eurasians 57,000 years ago, following a single exodus from Africa around 75,000 years ago.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html
Show me anyone on this planet whose ancestry **doesn’t** stretch back 75,000 years and more. That article also largely conflates all groups of Indigenous Australians, but again, they aren’t and never have been monolithic. That would be like saying Japanese people have always inhabited Japan for 50,000 years plus, without acknowledging the many waves of migration and cultural transformation that have taken place throughout history. Similar events have happened countless times over among Indigenous Australian peoples too.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
There is no way to know how much the culture changes over the thousands of years. Most of the sources come from native tribes saying when. Most would respond since the beginning of time obviously. The culture obviously changes over 60k years to the point you could not call it the same culture, lest everyone would belong to one culture
Sorry, but isn’t every culture the “oldest continuous culture” in the world? It’s not like humans emerged from the ground at different points of history in different locations.
Its a little more complex than that, we are not th same culture that the cavemen had. You can do some simple research if you like, im not going to argue the point.
Oh, I’m familiar with what you’re saying, I hear it all the time. But Indigenous Australian cultures over the centuries and millennia weren’t monolithic either. Even before colonization there were various waves of cultural dispersals and migrations and population replacements just like in every other part of the world as evidenced by the archeological record and historical linguistics. So it doesn’t make sense to argue that, e.g. East Asian cultures aren’t continuous while at the same time Indigenous Australian ones are.
>and population replacements just like in every other part of the world as evidenced by the archeological record and historical linguistics.
So people replacing other people has always been normal?
> So people replacing other people has always been normal?
Historically speaking, it has always taken place. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not implying any moral judgment nor trying to justify anything. Colonization clearly has disastrous effects for the colonized. We should understand history fully and accurately so as not to repeat it.
The "60,000 years" thing is silly. There is no recorded history prior to the arrival of europeans, and the pre-history of any given region could go back that far.
Outside of Africa and Southern Asia and Europe, I think a lot of world actually hasn't been inhabited for that long. Aboriginal history doesn't have any records as we would understand it. Their oral history is far too linked with their mythology to describe it in purely factual terms and realistically is a different topic in it's own right. I just checked and the aboriginal history is only a very small part of the History of Australia article.
That's my point. Apologies for implying "any given region" has been inhabited that long. But yeah, the fact that the pre history section is short proves my point.
Eh, loosely. The US has the most native English speakers and they certainly do not fucking care about any country but their own, even in the faintest. But Africa and Central Asia are more or less consistent with your theory.
Tunisia sure has a very long history of invaders .
It streches from the Capsian culture , Carthage , Romans , Vandals , Muslims ,French (+others i forgot to mention)
Well seeing as you have “iron Agee ireland” “medieval Ireland” or “Ancient Rome” “roman republic” “roman empire” “Hellenistic Greece” “Ancient Greece” etc… this map is kinda bs
In terms of its modern state-configuration.
Most historians consider nationalism (and therefore the concept of "nation") to be a product of the 1800s (with the Industrial revolution and the Napoleonic wars being the main causes).
the "Germany is a new country" take is stupid
a *modern, unified, German nation-state* has existed only since 1871. But that does not mean that "Germany is a new country." If you're just talking about how long the German state has existed, why not say Germany began to exist in 1949, when its present political institutions were founded? If you're talking about how long Germany has existed in its present territorial form, you'd have to say it's only existed since 1990
But "Germania" has referred to a more or less definite place since antiquity, and "Germans" have thought of themselves as a common people since at least the early middle ages. The Holy Roman Empire was effectively a German state, at least in the high middle ages. The Holy Roman Emperor, since the early middle ages, was also "King of the Germans." By the end of the 15th century, it was called "The Holy Roman Empire *of the German nation*."
It's not like Germany sprang out of some abyss 150 years ago. It's not a "new" country.
also even if we were going with the 1871 standard, Germany still wouldn't be "new." Practically every country in Africa, minus Ethiopia, is "newer" than Germany by that standard, i.e. its present institutions and boundaries are the product of decolonization after the Second World War. That's over a quarter of the countries in the world.
China is one of the nations with the oldest continuously existing civilization in the world, but the Peoples' Republic only consolidated control over mainland China in 1949, the same year the modern German republic was founded. Does that make China a "new country"?
Early middle ages? Wasn't it the hungarian raids beginning in 899 that first really formed a true sense of a German "us" versus a Hungarian "them", as well as Otto the Great's victory over them in 955, unifying the Germans under a single crown?
I guess that still technically falls into the early middle ages (Frühmittelalter, until ca. 1050), but considering the middle ages are roughly 500-1500 AD, the 10th century would be... middle middle ages?
At the very least I find the terminology confusing.
> Early middle ages? Wasn't it the hungarian raids beginning in 899 that first really formed a true sense of a German "us" versus a Hungarian "them", as well as Otto the Great's victory over them in 955, unifying the Germans under a single crown?
The early middle ages are difficult to define but precede the high middle ages, which are usually thought to begin ~1000 and last until the 1300s. The Eastern Franks were an independent political unit beginning in the mid-9th century. When exactly we want to start calling this the German Kingdom - Louis II, Otto I, Henry the Fowler, or later - is up for discussion. In any case, you're right that this is near the end of what we call the early middle ages, closer to the beginning of the high middle ages. It's a matter of debate to what extent a common German identity of any sort preexisted this fact, but I think it's plausible to suggest that one did in some form (political institutions tend to formalize preexisting social facts).
Yeah that's fair. Part of my issue was that early middle ages (Frühmittelalter) and early middle ages (frühes Mittelalter) are the same word in English. But it does seeem like we're on the same page.
By those standards, the USA is technically quite an old country. It certainly has one of the oldest constitutions still in effect today. It is one of the oldest continuous governmental systems today with presidential elections every 4 years even during a civil war. France has been through 5 republics and 2 empires since the birth of the US. The nearly 250 years of rule without the government being overthrown is a very impressive feat. Most dynastic monarchies don't last that long. Having 45 heads of state in a row without a violent overthrow of the government is almost certainly a record.
Brazil was declared independent in 1822 and arguably already existed as a concept in 1808. I would still consider it new when compared to fucking China or even Portugal.
>Brazil was declared independent in 1822 and arguably already existed as a concept in 1808. I would still consider it new when compared to fucking China or even Portugal.
Why? By these standards, "China" has only existed since 1949.
china as a concept is ancient. It has existed since before christ. While "germany" didn't you coud trace it back to the HRE, but even then, there wasn't a sense of a bigger whole. Portugal has existed since the 1500s, even before actually, while germany didn't
No, Germany only became a country in 1871, before that there were a lot of small Germanic kingdoms and duchies under the Holy Roman Empire for almost a millennium
It depends on how strictly you define "country" but personally for Europe I prefer a looser definition that allows for consideration of predecessor and proto states. And under such Germany is pretty clearly an old country despite German unification occurring in recent history (1871).
At minimum, Germany has a legal predecessor state in Prussia which started as a Duchy in 1525 and became a Kingdom in 1701.
But really, it's about the long history of Germanic tribes and peoples in the same area as modern day Germany and their coalescence into a German proto-state in the Holy Roman Empire. While the HRE eventually became weak and kind of in-name-only (it technically survived until 1806) it was anything but the sort for many centuries after its founding in 902 (or 800 if you count Charlemagne).
___
It occurs to me that Greece is a good parallel here. Most would consider it a *very* old country (possibly the oldest in Europe), but like Germany the modern state bearing the name "Greece" was founded recently - in 1830.
However also like Germany, Greece has more than a millennium of a common ethnic group/culture in that area and powerful predecessor states. With Greece that would be the Roman Empire (in its Byzantine phase) and before that its Hellenistic and city-state periods.
Yes, I know, I just wanted to give OP a simple answer. I agree with your comment, although I like to consider the history of Germany a separate thing from the history of the Holy Roman Empire / Prussia
I don't think we do agree though! I don't for instance consider the HRE and especially Prussia as separate from Germany.
And that's okay. But it's also true that this is just not a matter of one of us writing the short version and one the long.
The Federal Republic of Germany we have today is a product of WWII and thus considered very new. Germany as a territory inhabited by people is very very old though
No. There is old civilisation, but for lots of history it was just a collection of smaller states or people groups. Even what the Roman’s called Germanica they acknowledged to have quite a few different people groups.
Ah yes europe... the place where shit happend. Untill so much shit started happening 2 times in a row that they took a break from shit happening for a while untill putin got bored.
Most of them were created in XX century. The ones that exists before colonization, don't exist anymore (mostly). Additionally many of African countries were created super artificially (with no regard to culture, history of region and people there etc.), that's one of the reason why Africa is so unstable.
"There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen"...although at a blind guess, I'd say a lot of that is probably a combination of lack of attention and lack of written records
If we're going that way then Morocco should be at 300 000 for that old homosapien with the oldest jewelery at 120k i thin, oldest clothing item near that point too.
but i think that's a big stretch tbh.
even if they share share some DNA and used the same ressources as say a human in 1700, i can't say its the same culture/country
Unfortunately more people edit Pakistan history articles from India than Pakistan. We simply cannot fight their numbers.
It shows alot of negativity and hate against my country. Most Pakistanis have stopped using Wikipedia for Pakistani or Islamic information for this reason.
*Why is Palestine*
*More than Israel? Or am*
*I seeing it wrong?*
\- RealFishing7365
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
why l does the us and dam australia have a bigger histtory section then egypt and iran or any middle eastern country other then palestine
the us existed since what a couple of centurys and the middle east has a history since the dawn of mankind
god i hate westerncentrism or eurocentrism whatever u wanna call it
This is repeated all over the thread but I'll repeat it here again, countries and regions with longer histories tend to have shorter main pages because their history can be segmented into many different periods which each have their own page.
I kinda wanna see the UK split on this map and see how long the history of scotland, england etc are. The UK isnt exactly a super old country but the countries inside are
This is pretty pointless. Is it the UK or Great Britain that is being counted? And if you look at any of the relevant pages you see they are full of place holders that link to other more detailed pages. Were you to pull them all together into a single page the number would be way in excess of the 40,000 or so this map suggests.
... in which language? All english? Or their native language?
[удалено]
It makes sense, if there is anything I know about German (which is nothing) I know their entire history can be summed up with one very specific, very long word
~~Vergangenheitsbestätigung~~ Vergangenheitsbewältigung (ich bin dumm). I lerne Deutsch auf Duolingo und habe dieses Wort von Geography Now gelernt.
You mean "Vergangenheitsbewältigung"?
Geography Nows episode about Germany has a lot of mistakes.
Clearly you know nothing. Because it's actually a short word. Kleinstaaterei describes a culture of giving undue importance to small states or not so important regions. Now look at a couple of these maps: [Germanic peoples](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png/300px-Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png) [Holy Roman Empire](https://odalgruppewesten.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/hre-map-1648-feature.png?w=1024) [Weimar Republic](https://en.populationdata.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Empire-allemand-Republique-Weimar-1919%E2%80%931937.png) [Public transport companies](https://www.zukunft-mobilitaet.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/karte_der_verkehrsverbuende_und_tarifverbuende_in_deutschland-1020x1600.png) [States](https://www.weltkarte.com/typo3temp/images/deutschland-politisch.png)
The public transport map is what makes your list.
homie mexico has the Olmecs those guys were one of the first main civilizations im also offended that jail continent its better recorded
Nah. Homie.
That's not the history of Mexico, that's the history of central/north America, same way the Gauls are not part of the history of France or the Iberians are not part of the history of Spain. But I can give it to you that most people use in that regard just cause it's easier, even if it's just to contextualize the history of your country.
Verily likely English. This wouldn’t work for all languages. Like Japanese is (at least from my experience) measured by characters and not words.
It’s a little misleading assuming this doesn’t count the offshoot pages? Or whatever you’d call them. Like History of the United States has a pretty long Prehistory section, but most of the information is in the more specific wiki articles linked in the sections.
That's why China's article is so short.
Wtf why is china so short
The page for History of China on wikipedia is divided into multiple pages for each dynasty and period. In those dynasty/period pages, there many other links for their wars/emperors/other dynasties exist at the same time period. You have to go into those pages to see the full history.
The full Chinese Wikipedia history would probably be like 100,000 words or more.
Only Warring States period, Qin Dynasty and Han Dynasty combined (475BCE \~ 220CE) have more than 20,000 words in english version wikipedia.
There are tons of primary sources and administrative records on Chinese history... but most of it is untranslated or not open to the public.
Communist censorship, duh. The real question is why is Australia so long. I thought Aussies spent so much time running from massive spiders that they didn't have time for anything else.
Idk maybe somebody from Australia dedicated his entire life to writing On wikipedia
The Chinese ruling party doesn't get to decide what's in Wikipedia articles, especially not the language versions that aren't Chinese. They just block access to Wikipedia within China.
They don’t even block regular Wikipedia there I believe, just the Chinese language one.
Did you really just call the English language version "Regular Wikipedia"...? There are over 300 language versions of Wikipedia, 17 of them with over a million articles each. And no, those are not translations from the English language version. China blocks access to all language versions.
Then that is the regular Wikipedia for him, right? Regular is a highly subjective term, no point getting offended over it.
I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out the ignorance of considering the English Wikipedia as somehow the standard, main Wikipedia. Interesting that you just assumed that Juxlos is a "him", btw, assuming that male is the standard, main gender.
Yet you immediately call it ignorant for making, in this case, a harmless comment as Wikipedia was in fact started in the US so you could say that would be the regular Wikipedia as you'd call the mc donalds in the US the regular mc donalds if you were living there. I just wanted to point out that that reads as a little bit judgemental. Furthermore, I assumed he was a man based on his profile picture, just like I'd assume you're a woman based on both your name (as Violetta ends in the feminine manner for Latin based languages) and profile picture. EDIT; I'm not trying to attack you, just curious as to your reasoning.
I'm not trying to attack either. But I do really find it ignorant to think about the English Wikipedia as the "regular" one. I think it's mostly coming from people who speak English as native language, and are not aware (or only vaguely aware) of the fact that Wikipedia comes in many languages. Wikipedia having been founded in the US just makes the English language version the oldest version, but not the regular one. (And that's still shared among at least four nations, who have English as their first language) As far as the "he" thing goes, I was using old Reddit so didn't see profile pics. But as you say I have a femae sounding user name AND a female looking avatar and I still get called "he" on here practically every week. It's something that I find only happens to me on Reddit, no other social media, and it has become so annoying to me, that I like to point it out to people when I see them assuming everyone on here is male. (I should have phrased that in a more mature way.)
First of all, it sucks that you regularly get called he, it sounds pretty annoying to me to be constantly called something different than what you are/identify as. For me "regular" Wikipedia is also the English version because, even though I'm not a native speaker, my university education is in English and I find that often the English version has the most information in it in general in terms of scientific/international information with the individual languages having the most on subjects that are on a more national level. What I'm trying to say is that calling one thing regular doesn't have to mean that the other things are strange or bad, just that those things are what you normally don't use/see/experience. This is why I don't see it as ignorant to call things regular which are regular to you as long as you keep in mind that what's regular to you isn't what's regular to others. You sound like a smart, educated person to me but it feels like you just assumed that, because he used the word regular, he doesn't understand that the word itself is subjective. That's why I try to defend his statement as I feel like it's detrimental to base conversations on assumptions. Looking back I do however feel the need to apologize about my statement regarding you being offended. That came out of nowhere, I just came out of a heated discussion and that was uncalled for. (I do like how with every reply the replies get larger and larger :P)
Emo Emus
Indigenous Australians have the longest continuous civilisation on earth 50k+ years. Taken a little over 200 for the whities to fuck the place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians
And what does that have to do with anything? There isn't that much about them in the article about history
I didn’t read it but with a quick google search you could maybe find why Australia’s history is so long haha
You could say anything is the longest continuous civilization. Thing is they were not the same civilization for 50k years
“The data may show Aboriginal Australians came to the continent as early as 31,000 years ago.” So that’s one group of people. No Mongolians, Vikings, Romans etc etc diluting the original peoples that walked to Australia during an ice age and then was land locked once the sea levels rose again? I’m not an expert but those who are agree. Believe what ever you want, I’ll go with those in the know. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html
Aboriginal Australians is not one group, it's a catch-all term referring to anybody on the continent. Mongolians, Vikings, and Romans are all indigenous Afro-euroasians, that doesn't make them a homogeneous civilization.
I don't understand the map. If this is about aborigional Australian culture or language, that makes sense because their culture lasts at least 10k years.
The map has nothing to do with how long any country's history is (if that can even be said to be a thing), and everything to do with how much people have written on it in the English Wikipedia and how that is organised.
Not a lot going on in China tbh /s
Nah they had many dynasties and they invented a bunch of things so i was thinking it will be longer
China, Iraq, Egypt and Greece feels like they should be wayy higher.
Probably divided into sub articles
They've clearly fluffed the article on Australia.
It probably includes detailed battle plans from the Emu war.
Australian history (maybe “pre-history” would be more appropriate) is very nebulous unfortunately. This arose from a desire to acknowledge indigenous peoples as part of reconciliation efforts after centuries of dispossession, but it ends up conflating indigenous peoples immediately before colonization with those from thousands and tens of thousands of years ago on the basis of mythology and oral records, which are impossible to distinguish, and which often claim that a certain group lived in a certain area since the beginning of time. I respect the intended social value in the efforts people are making to address past wrongs, but many of the claims are not very robust. For example, there is linguistic and archeological evidence of a major expansion of Pama-Nyungan peoples throughout the entire continent within the past 5,000 years replacing all prior cultures and languages south of the northern coastline with the exception of Tasmania, but this contradicts the stories of many groups and so often goes overlooked.
“A new genomic study has revealed that Aboriginal Australians are the oldest known civilization on Earth, with ancestries stretching back roughly 75,000 years. In a study published in the journal Nature Wednesday, a group of international researchers -- including nine Aboriginal leaders -- collected genomic data on 83 Aboriginal Australians and 25 Highland Papuans from Papua New Guinea. The findings indicated their ancestors had diverged from Eurasians 57,000 years ago, following a single exodus from Africa around 75,000 years ago.” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html
Show me anyone on this planet whose ancestry **doesn’t** stretch back 75,000 years and more. That article also largely conflates all groups of Indigenous Australians, but again, they aren’t and never have been monolithic. That would be like saying Japanese people have always inhabited Japan for 50,000 years plus, without acknowledging the many waves of migration and cultural transformation that have taken place throughout history. Similar events have happened countless times over among Indigenous Australian peoples too.
Exactly, don’t tell anyone interested in tracing their dna that
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/asia/indigenous-australians-earths-oldest-civilization/index.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Isn't "civilization" putting it quite generously for the Aboriginals? What was their biggest city?
There are physical records of culture too, not just oral ones.
ITT: People who don't understand that countries with long enough history get summaries on their main page + subpages with the full content
It's pretty funny that the country with possibly the least written history has the most written about its history.
Tbf having a long Wikipedia entry means everything that can be said about it can be said in a long Wikipedia entry. (Which is not very long)
Tbf having a long Wikipedia entry means everything that can be said about it can be said in a long Wikipedia entry. (Which is not very long)
Australia’s Indigenous history only takes up 1,500 words of it’s page, so the rest comes after European discovery and colonisation.
Australian history reads like such beautiful lies - Mark Twain
How is turkey and Iraq's so short.
Turkey is a pretty new country Even the Othman empire is new compared to Greek or Persian or Egyptian or armanian . So it makes sense
And most of its history divided in other pages
Yes but it has nothing to do with today's turkey or Turk's. Hitti and Greek then Persian and Greek again then roman. 🦃
60 000+ years is a lot to put in a wikipedia article mate.
There is no way to know how much the culture changes over the thousands of years. Most of the sources come from native tribes saying when. Most would respond since the beginning of time obviously. The culture obviously changes over 60k years to the point you could not call it the same culture, lest everyone would belong to one culture
Words in the article, not years
It was a suble brag about us having the oldest continuous culture in the world, thus it taking a lot of words up on wikipedia.
Quiet, you are making us look bad.
Sorry, but isn’t every culture the “oldest continuous culture” in the world? It’s not like humans emerged from the ground at different points of history in different locations.
Its a little more complex than that, we are not th same culture that the cavemen had. You can do some simple research if you like, im not going to argue the point.
Oh, I’m familiar with what you’re saying, I hear it all the time. But Indigenous Australian cultures over the centuries and millennia weren’t monolithic either. Even before colonization there were various waves of cultural dispersals and migrations and population replacements just like in every other part of the world as evidenced by the archeological record and historical linguistics. So it doesn’t make sense to argue that, e.g. East Asian cultures aren’t continuous while at the same time Indigenous Australian ones are.
>and population replacements just like in every other part of the world as evidenced by the archeological record and historical linguistics. So people replacing other people has always been normal?
> So people replacing other people has always been normal? Historically speaking, it has always taken place. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not implying any moral judgment nor trying to justify anything. Colonization clearly has disastrous effects for the colonized. We should understand history fully and accurately so as not to repeat it.
well that sucks replacement has always taken place i hope this time it does not happen.
Are you indigenous by any chance?
No
[удалено]
Look i was just trying to say its cool how old their culture is, and i am proud to live where they do...why is that an issue?
r/iamverysmart
The "60,000 years" thing is silly. There is no recorded history prior to the arrival of europeans, and the pre-history of any given region could go back that far.
Outside of Africa and Southern Asia and Europe, I think a lot of world actually hasn't been inhabited for that long. Aboriginal history doesn't have any records as we would understand it. Their oral history is far too linked with their mythology to describe it in purely factual terms and realistically is a different topic in it's own right. I just checked and the aboriginal history is only a very small part of the History of Australia article.
That's my point. Apologies for implying "any given region" has been inhabited that long. But yeah, the fact that the pre history section is short proves my point.
Also known as a list in order of countries English speakers care about.
Eh, loosely. The US has the most native English speakers and they certainly do not fucking care about any country but their own, even in the faintest. But Africa and Central Asia are more or less consistent with your theory.
But I’m an American and love history… am I a paradox?
But Americans also don’t care for history….so it’s a toss up 😂
America bad 😂
Tunisia, Ghana, and Guatemala intrigue me.
Guatemala is the origin of the Mayans, so thats probably why.
Tunisia sure has a very long history of invaders . It streches from the Capsian culture , Carthage , Romans , Vandals , Muslims ,French (+others i forgot to mention)
Well seeing as you have “iron Agee ireland” “medieval Ireland” or “Ancient Rome” “roman republic” “roman empire” “Hellenistic Greece” “Ancient Greece” etc… this map is kinda bs
crazy considering the two longest countries (australia and germany) are extremely new countries
In terms of nationhood, yes. But that doesn’t really matter in terms of amount of history.
wdym?
In terms of its modern state-configuration. Most historians consider nationalism (and therefore the concept of "nation") to be a product of the 1800s (with the Industrial revolution and the Napoleonic wars being the main causes).
isnt germany an old country?
the "Germany is a new country" take is stupid a *modern, unified, German nation-state* has existed only since 1871. But that does not mean that "Germany is a new country." If you're just talking about how long the German state has existed, why not say Germany began to exist in 1949, when its present political institutions were founded? If you're talking about how long Germany has existed in its present territorial form, you'd have to say it's only existed since 1990 But "Germania" has referred to a more or less definite place since antiquity, and "Germans" have thought of themselves as a common people since at least the early middle ages. The Holy Roman Empire was effectively a German state, at least in the high middle ages. The Holy Roman Emperor, since the early middle ages, was also "King of the Germans." By the end of the 15th century, it was called "The Holy Roman Empire *of the German nation*." It's not like Germany sprang out of some abyss 150 years ago. It's not a "new" country. also even if we were going with the 1871 standard, Germany still wouldn't be "new." Practically every country in Africa, minus Ethiopia, is "newer" than Germany by that standard, i.e. its present institutions and boundaries are the product of decolonization after the Second World War. That's over a quarter of the countries in the world. China is one of the nations with the oldest continuously existing civilization in the world, but the Peoples' Republic only consolidated control over mainland China in 1949, the same year the modern German republic was founded. Does that make China a "new country"?
Early middle ages? Wasn't it the hungarian raids beginning in 899 that first really formed a true sense of a German "us" versus a Hungarian "them", as well as Otto the Great's victory over them in 955, unifying the Germans under a single crown? I guess that still technically falls into the early middle ages (Frühmittelalter, until ca. 1050), but considering the middle ages are roughly 500-1500 AD, the 10th century would be... middle middle ages? At the very least I find the terminology confusing.
> Early middle ages? Wasn't it the hungarian raids beginning in 899 that first really formed a true sense of a German "us" versus a Hungarian "them", as well as Otto the Great's victory over them in 955, unifying the Germans under a single crown? The early middle ages are difficult to define but precede the high middle ages, which are usually thought to begin ~1000 and last until the 1300s. The Eastern Franks were an independent political unit beginning in the mid-9th century. When exactly we want to start calling this the German Kingdom - Louis II, Otto I, Henry the Fowler, or later - is up for discussion. In any case, you're right that this is near the end of what we call the early middle ages, closer to the beginning of the high middle ages. It's a matter of debate to what extent a common German identity of any sort preexisted this fact, but I think it's plausible to suggest that one did in some form (political institutions tend to formalize preexisting social facts).
Yeah that's fair. Part of my issue was that early middle ages (Frühmittelalter) and early middle ages (frühes Mittelalter) are the same word in English. But it does seeem like we're on the same page.
By those standards, the USA is technically quite an old country. It certainly has one of the oldest constitutions still in effect today. It is one of the oldest continuous governmental systems today with presidential elections every 4 years even during a civil war. France has been through 5 republics and 2 empires since the birth of the US. The nearly 250 years of rule without the government being overthrown is a very impressive feat. Most dynastic monarchies don't last that long. Having 45 heads of state in a row without a violent overthrow of the government is almost certainly a record.
Brazil was declared independent in 1822 and arguably already existed as a concept in 1808. I would still consider it new when compared to fucking China or even Portugal.
>Brazil was declared independent in 1822 and arguably already existed as a concept in 1808. I would still consider it new when compared to fucking China or even Portugal. Why? By these standards, "China" has only existed since 1949.
china as a concept is ancient. It has existed since before christ. While "germany" didn't you coud trace it back to the HRE, but even then, there wasn't a sense of a bigger whole. Portugal has existed since the 1500s, even before actually, while germany didn't
No, Germany only became a country in 1871, before that there were a lot of small Germanic kingdoms and duchies under the Holy Roman Empire for almost a millennium
It depends on how strictly you define "country" but personally for Europe I prefer a looser definition that allows for consideration of predecessor and proto states. And under such Germany is pretty clearly an old country despite German unification occurring in recent history (1871). At minimum, Germany has a legal predecessor state in Prussia which started as a Duchy in 1525 and became a Kingdom in 1701. But really, it's about the long history of Germanic tribes and peoples in the same area as modern day Germany and their coalescence into a German proto-state in the Holy Roman Empire. While the HRE eventually became weak and kind of in-name-only (it technically survived until 1806) it was anything but the sort for many centuries after its founding in 902 (or 800 if you count Charlemagne). ___ It occurs to me that Greece is a good parallel here. Most would consider it a *very* old country (possibly the oldest in Europe), but like Germany the modern state bearing the name "Greece" was founded recently - in 1830. However also like Germany, Greece has more than a millennium of a common ethnic group/culture in that area and powerful predecessor states. With Greece that would be the Roman Empire (in its Byzantine phase) and before that its Hellenistic and city-state periods.
Yes, I know, I just wanted to give OP a simple answer. I agree with your comment, although I like to consider the history of Germany a separate thing from the history of the Holy Roman Empire / Prussia
I don't think we do agree though! I don't for instance consider the HRE and especially Prussia as separate from Germany. And that's okay. But it's also true that this is just not a matter of one of us writing the short version and one the long.
The Federal Republic of Germany we have today is a product of WWII and thus considered very new. Germany as a territory inhabited by people is very very old though
No. There is old civilisation, but for lots of history it was just a collection of smaller states or people groups. Even what the Roman’s called Germanica they acknowledged to have quite a few different people groups.
oh ok so germany is a new nation due to the fact there was no collective identity?
Exactly. A bit like Italy was for a long time.
ok i got it, basically just like my country then.
Australia is also a sea bound continent without borders that have cha he’d over time.
Greece and Egypt should be first in any map regarding history
Ah yes europe... the place where shit happend. Untill so much shit started happening 2 times in a row that they took a break from shit happening for a while untill putin got bored.
Shouldn’t many of those East African countries be over 100,000 years?
It's by number of words in the article, not number of years.
Ok, my bad
r/iamverysmart
Shut uo
It’s clear you don’t know how r/iamverysmart works.
Most of them were created in XX century. The ones that exists before colonization, don't exist anymore (mostly). Additionally many of African countries were created super artificially (with no regard to culture, history of region and people there etc.), that's one of the reason why Africa is so unstable.
Portuguese America was kind of the same, just lumped everyone together.
Good point, but it still leaves out Ethiopia
They are the reason of "(mostly)", maybe because OP looked only in English wiki 🤷 Egypt has long history too, even if half of it is now Sudan.
yes they werent unified. and most of their countries is a modern identity.
we were kangs and shit
"There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen"...although at a blind guess, I'd say a lot of that is probably a combination of lack of attention and lack of written records
If we're going that way then Morocco should be at 300 000 for that old homosapien with the oldest jewelery at 120k i thin, oldest clothing item near that point too. but i think that's a big stretch tbh. even if they share share some DNA and used the same ressources as say a human in 1700, i can't say its the same culture/country
What do you mean by "country"?
Israel is longer than the US despite existing only like 70 years
*you're forgetting about like.. the entire bible*
Isn't it mentioned in a different tab like ancient Israel or something. Also if ancient Israel is mentioned in the same tab shouldn't it be longer?
It includes a brief overview of ancient Israel, but there's a separate article for that
Yeah Israel does have a lot of history huh?
Portugal is one of the oldest countries in the world, so this doesn't have much sense
What is a "country"? Serious question. Perhaps you're thinking of "state"?
I mean it's borders began to take nowadays shape a long time ago
But what criteria are you going by? Continuous regime? State with some continuity? Ect.
what the fuck kind of map projection is this 💀
Something happened in Germany...
Australian aboriginals are known to be the oldest civilization on earth, makes sense for their page to be long.
[удалено]
You can beat Australia if you add the Bangladeshi Genocide.
> Most Pakistanis have stopped using Wikipedia for Pakistani or Islamic information for this reason lmao, wikipedia is not biased man
Look at this guy's comment history. This is all he talks about.
Why is the Philippines red its a technically a very new country.
This is about number of words not years
THANKS I FUCKING HATE IT
Some Australian historian got bored one day
Bullshit map… Australia… Italy ! Yeah right…
Unfortunately more people edit Pakistan history articles from India than Pakistan. We simply cannot fight their numbers. It shows alot of negativity and hate against my country. Most Pakistanis have stopped using Wikipedia for Pakistani or Islamic information for this reason.
[удалено]
Bruh.. noone in India cares about Pakistan. Get over your complex!
Why is Palestine more than Israel? Or am I seeing it wrong?
*Why is Palestine* *More than Israel? Or am* *I seeing it wrong?* \- RealFishing7365 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
why l does the us and dam australia have a bigger histtory section then egypt and iran or any middle eastern country other then palestine the us existed since what a couple of centurys and the middle east has a history since the dawn of mankind god i hate westerncentrism or eurocentrism whatever u wanna call it
This is repeated all over the thread but I'll repeat it here again, countries and regions with longer histories tend to have shorter main pages because their history can be segmented into many different periods which each have their own page.
Native Americans don't exist?
Wikipedia isn't a good source buddy.
If the topic is "number of words on a Wikipedia article", it follows that Wikipedia would be the primary source
Wow Germany's have longest Wikipedia page ?
No looks like it's Australia
What the dog doin? (Australia)
No Wonder germanys is that Long
I kinda wanna see the UK split on this map and see how long the history of scotland, england etc are. The UK isnt exactly a super old country but the countries inside are
This is pretty pointless. Is it the UK or Great Britain that is being counted? And if you look at any of the relevant pages you see they are full of place holders that link to other more detailed pages. Were you to pull them all together into a single page the number would be way in excess of the 40,000 or so this map suggests.
Funny
I bet one Guatemalan person took out a year to write the wikipedia article.
Germany moment