I am pretty sure that GEO doesn't know the answer , he might be looking for one or he already knows that there is no answers possible the way the question is being asked, resulting in having a tread going forever, he might have just planted the seed and watch it going.

I know he posted the same question on another site.

I think babthrower is right to demand a more precise definition of "people" or "nation," and of the three that she provides, the second is closest to what I had in mind:

-- a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

However, I would like to use a stricter definition that excludes the remote peoples of the Amazon, the montagnards of Vietnam, outlying Micronesian and Andaman islanders, New Guinea highlanders, etc. While these peoples may have escaped colonization and conquest and may enjoy a large degree of autonomy, they are at least nominally subject to the legal authority of their surrounding nations.

So let's stick to the generally recognized 193 independent countries of the world (see "Defining an Independent Country" http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm). Most of these gained their independence from another nation (e.g., USA from Britain, Vatican from Italy, Iceland from Denmark) or were temporarily subjugated by another nation (China by the Mongols, Thailand by Burma), but I think there are one or two candidates whose independence goes back to the dawn of history and has never been compromised. Possibly three or four, but the definitions DO get murky, so I'm still researching.

OK, let's make this easier. Following are the best candidates that have been suggested to me. Which one(s) have always been independent, never subject to another nation?

Arabia (now Saudi Arabia)
Bhutan
Ethiopia
Liberia
Nepal
Russia
Sweden
Turkey

Can anyone provide more information to support or disqualify these suggestions?

Just a quick glance at the list -

Ethiopia was occupied by Italy in the 1930s 1nd (I think) the early 40s.

Nepal - was under a couple of dynasties of India

Sweden - under Danish rule as part of a union with Denmark and Norway

Russia - under the rule of one of Genghis Khan's sons or grandsons ("Scratch a Tatar, find a Mongol")

Saudi Arabia was first a state in the early 1700s, but was overrun by the Ottoman Turks. A second Saudi state started shortly after the Turks took hold, and was in power for most of the 19th Century. Then the Sauds lost power, but regained it after WWI.

Turkey was also a state before its defeat at the hands of the Mongols. This was before the Ottoman Empire, which itself was disbanded and became the modern Republic of Turkey.

Bhutan was a colony of the UK in everything but name for most of the first half of the 20th Century. It had previously been completely independent.

I really can't find a reason to eliminate Liberia.

Would a successful military coup eliminate a country? If so, Liberia is in trouble.

Arabia
(You say "Arabia (now Saudi Arabia)" but they are far from synonymous. For instance, Yemen and Oman are part of the previous Arabia.)

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0856661.html
From about 1,000 B.C. to the present, the following nations have ruled all or part of Arabia: Ma'in, Sheba, and Himyar; the Medes; the Persians; Rome (briefly); Ethiopia. The Sassanids of Persia established a brief rule over the entire peninsula.
In the 7th century Arabia was unified by Mohammed. But independent emirates arose in Yemen, Oman, and elsewhere. By the 11th century the peninsula was in a state of anarchy.
After that, the following nations have invaded and ruled parts of the peninsula:
The Portuguese seized Oman in 1508.
The Ottoman Empire seized power in 1659, but it never controlled all Arabia. It lost:
Perim Island and Aden to the British; Saudi Arabia to the Saud tribe (in 1932); Transjordan and Iraq to the Hashemite tribe after World war I; Britain had protectorates over the Arab sheikdoms. The British withdrew in the late 1960s.
Recent history we know.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

Nepal - was under a couple of dynasties of India

Not all of Nepal was ruled by the Mauryan Empire or by the Gupta Dynasty. Does anyone know if the Gurkhas' homeland was subjugated? After all, it was the Gurkhas who unified Nepal and created the modern nation.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
From about 1,000 B.C. to the present, the following nations have ruled all or part of Arabia: Ma'in, Sheba, and Himyar; the Medes; the Persians; Rome (briefly); Ethiopia. The Sassanids of Persia established a brief rule over the entire peninsula.

Did the Sassanids or any of the other conquerors ever control central Arabia, home of the Saud tribe? After all, it was the Saudis who created the modern state. It took them three attempts, starting in 1744, but during the interim periods it appears they retreated into the desert and remained independent.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

Turkey was also a state before its defeat at the hands of the Mongols. This was before the Ottoman Empire, which itself was disbanded and became the modern Republic of Turkey.

Bhutan was a colony of the UK in everything but name for most of the first half of the 20th Century. It had previously been completely independent.

I had thought that the Ottoman Turks picked up where the Seljuk Turks left off, but as you point out, there was a period of Mongol control around 1260, which would disqualify Turkey.

I believe Bhutan, unlike most of South Asia, actually succeeded in retaining its independence from the British Empire, although it was "guided" by Britain on foreign affairs 1910-1947, and by India after 1949.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
Would a successful military coup eliminate a country? If so, Liberia is in trouble.

No, a change of government does not constitute a loss of independence.

A case can be made for Liberia, but with qualifications. True, it was colonized by settlers from the USA, but unlike the European colonies in the "Scramble for Africa," Liberia was not a territory governed by the USA. It was founded as an independent nation composed of immigrant blacks and native African inhabitants. There was no military conquest.

On the other hand, the immigrant "Americo-Liberians" clearly dominated the politics of the new country, leading to internal tension with the natives. And the Americo-Liberians were themselves freed slaves, who had previously been a subject people in America.

The case is not obvious, but the native Liberians at least could probably claim that they and their ancestors have always enjoyed independence.

quote:

The Sassanids of Persia

My source said they did briefly rule all of Arabia. But I very much doubt whether this can be proved one way or another today.

The reason is that the whole peninsula was basically tribal, except for some coastal trading cities. The latter obviously changed hands, as shown above.

The reason is that the history of the central Arabian peninsula is not that well documented in a way at all comparable to to-day's standards.

The area we call Saudi Arabia has a lot of desert, and in that type of land, settled communities don't exist. Herds of sheep or camels will very quickly eat all vegetation and the herders must move on or starve. In any area, this makes it difficult or impossible to set up an administrative center. Territorial boundaries between tribes are therefore continually shifting. There is perpetual fierce warfare between tribes. The same was true in the desert areas of Asia and North America.

And since the tribes were not literate, and by their very nature did not maintain document libraries such as we find in stable areas, the patterns of dominance at any given time are a matter of anecdotal record if they are recorded at all; hence subjective.

But it's clear that until after World war I, central Arabia was under the shifting control of various Bedouin tribes.

Here is an example of why some claims to have ruled all of Arabia, or even all of central Arabia, are suspect. An over-chief named Imru' al-Qays (d. 328CE) called himself 'King over all the Arabs' (which meant all of the Bedouin tribes). But there are no records of that day from other peoples confirming this claim. And none to deny it, either.

Similarly the Muslims in the ninth century controlled a large area centered in Medina, and collected a tax called the zakat (evidence that the claim of control was founded). But after Mohammed's death in 632, many tribes stopped paying the tax and declared their independence. But the Muslims later unified Arabia into a 'fraternity' of tribes before 634 CE.

So I can't see how one group, the House of Saud, can document a claim to have ruled all or part of the land area we now call Saudi Arabia during all historical time. Their eminence began in the 18th century, as far as I can tell. Of course, people can make all kinds of claims.

It would not in the least surprise me if none of the 192 to 194 independent countries of the world has never been colonized, conquered, occupied, or governed by an external power within the period of its recorded history

Or in other words all countries have been either
_ colonized
* conquered
* occupied or
* governed by an external power in historical times

quote:

Bhutan was a colony of the UK in everything but name for most of the first half of the 20th Century. It had previously been completely independent.

Actually, the 1910 Treaty of Punakha guaranteed Bhutan's autonomy in exchange for accepting British "guidance" in foreign relations. See Leo E. Rose (1977), The Politics of Bhutan, p 67: "Bhutan emerged from the British period in India with the broadest degree of independence in de facto, if not necessarily de jure, terms of all the Himalayan border states, and was less inhibited by formal and informal qualifications on their relations with India than either Nepal or Sikkim."

From Rose, p 24: "there can be no doubt that since at least the tenth century no external power has controlled Bhutan, although there have been periods when various of its neighbors have been able to exert a strong cultural and/or political influence there."

Those two sources seem to disagree with each other, even if you call Britain one of Bhutan's "neighbors."

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:

Nepal - was under a couple of dynasties of India

Nepal may have been subject to the Gupta Empire. The Allahabad Pillar inscription states that the "Lord of Nepal" paid taxes and tribute to the emperor Samudragupta (reigned 335-380). However, it is not clear to what degree this constituted a loss of sovereignty--it could have been a tributary relationship, like the many independent nations which paid tribute to China in ancient times. See James Hertzman (1993), "Nepal: Historical Setting," in Savada, ed., Nepal and Bhutan: Country Studies, 3d ed., p 6: "It is still impossible to tell who this lord may have been, what area he ruled, and if he was really a subordinate of the Guptas."

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Nepal - was under a couple of dynasties of India

Nepal may also have been conquered by Harsha, who created an empire (606–647) after the disintegration of the Gupta Empire. Again, the exact status of Nepal, on the spectrum of suzerainty to sovereignty, is not clear.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Those two sources seem to disagree with each other, even if you call Britain one of Bhutan's "neighbors."

I think Rose is saying, in both quotes, that the British (through their colony India, neighboring Bhutan) had some political influence in Bhutan, but did not control it. Bhutan still had "the broadest degree of independence."