The majority of the now UK was controlled by the norman french for hundreds of years. Thats where we get a lot of our french based vocabulary in english
True. Despite the fact that it's tempting to consider Kublai Khan voluntarily adopted the role Emperor of China, so that China the country and the ethic group have stayed "independent" since the origin.
When I found out recently that Norway and Sweden were in a Union, I realised it was not dissimilar to the union connecting Scotland to the United Kingdom. But if Scotland had voted recently to dissolve that union, nobody (least of all the Scottish) would complain if someone said they had achieved "independence from England", even if that would technically not have been the case.
England and Scotland were in personal union from 1603 until 1707 (excluding interregnums and pretenders), meaning they were independent countries with the same monarch. After this they were united as one country by the Act of Union, which combined the two seperate parliaments into one Parliament of Great Britain. This didn't happen with Sweden and Norway, which remained nominally independent of one another despite sharing a monarch.
England and Scotland were united as a single nation for a short period in the 17th century too, by the "Tender of Union" passed by the Commonwealth Republic and repealed by Charles the Second.
I remember reading that Sweden was debating whether to allow it and maybe use the army. So it might have been nominally in a personal union, but in practice much more.
Having another country's army within your territory, which doesn't recognise the validity of your independence claims, and governs over the territory, sounds like not that independent from my point of view.
U.S.A., for instance, had its own working government, more or less from day 1.
The Federation of Malaya was subsumed by the new entity of Malaysia in 1963. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965, becoming an independent nation.
You should check out Panama's history and you'll see that you're wrong about that. Panama was part of Colombia until they separated in 1903 supporting America's desires to build the canal on that area.
Could be description be reworded please? Many of these countries were not part of the countries from which they gained independence (e.g. Congo, Jamaica, Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria).
PNG was never actually colonised by or a territory of Australia. It was a UK territory merely administered by Australia after WWII until independence from the UK.
That's only true for the northern half of PNG, which was originally a German colony called Germany New Guinea. The southern half was most certainly a British territory in 1882 when it became British New Guinea.
While there is suprisingly little known/mentioned on the history of San Marino, it is documented that San Marino belonged to the Duchy of Spoleto in the early medival times. Apparently, San Marino became an independent state somewhen in the 13th century.
Norway was always independent, but it was in union with Sweden until 1905. Iceland was in a similar situation with Denmark until 1944 when it became a republic.
Are you trying to tell me, that San Marino has been under one consistent, self-governing rule for the past 1700 years (or thereabouts, since it is dubious) ???
I was stuck at the DR Congo question when I remembered the Billy Joel hit "We Didn't Start The Fire" where he sings the line "Belgians in the Congo". That gave me my 24th correct answer.
I want to object to the term "part of" in the instructions. There is an important (legal and practical) difference between being a territory of a country and being part of that country.
In some of these cases the new country was part of the country from which it gained independence (e.g. Singapore, Panama). In others not (e.g. Indonesia, Nigeria).
While Panama was a part of Gran Colombia, that country ceased to exist in 1831. Panama gained its independence from Colombia in 1903 - over seven decades after Gran Colombia ceased to exist. So that answer shouldn't be accepted.
Because Russia was the puppeteer of USSR, Croatia fought its independence war against mostly Serbian troops, but Italy wasn't anything close to a political entity for another 300 years, and what you consider Italy today didn't come to be for another 1500+ years, with a completely different population. It's like asking "why isn't Iroqouis confederation not a type-in for U.S.A."
There are plenty of youtube videos of random Americans being asked questions about other countries and failing badly, so it's not like you're on your own on this one.
i was so confused why San Marino wasn't accepting "Holy Roman Empire" cuz i was sure that was the answer... turns out they weren't holy at the time *shrugs*
U.S.A., for instance, had its own working government, more or less from day 1.
This would be good as a series, surely theres enough countries to make at least 2 more, or a easy medium hard quiz series!
given in 1828 instead of 1825, nice quizz by the way!
They say it is so, just like the Papal States dated their history back to Constantine, to gain legitimacy for their (much later) independence.
Likely the independent self-rule came to be in the late Middle Ages (after 11th century).
Which is still impressive, by the way!
In some of these cases the new country was part of the country from which it gained independence (e.g. Singapore, Panama). In others not (e.g. Indonesia, Nigeria).
It's who, not whom. Whom is never actually right. It's a made up word used to trick students.
So far, no. As long as it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.
It actually exists since, likely, less than 1000 years as an independent entity.
Definitely nothing dating earlier than Constantine!
But also, it wasn't independent from HRE until at least the Communes age (11th-12th century A.D.).
I'm not saying to delete it, but there should be a caveat about historical truth of such risible claim.
Edit: saw the caveat. Sorry for the unneeded pedantry.