Unconquered nations

Thailand.

Originally posted by Maharbbal No Thailand was de facto conquered by Japan during WWII

Originally posted by Joinville Sweden, the heartland of which has never successfully been invaded and occupied by a foreign power. At best there were medieval and early modern dynastic disputes which led to civil war, dividing the country into factions. But no clear-cut case of a foreign amy with no local support conquering it (or perhaps bothering with it).

Originally posted by kurt the turkish people of anatolia have never been conquered. the people who lived in anatolia before the turks have. as i mentioned in my post, turkish presence in anatolia began after the battle of manzikert in 1071.

Turkey has been conqured for exactly the same reason that Australia and America have been conqured, and thats without pointing out that there was much more intermixing between pre-turk anatolians and turks than migrant Australians and aboriginies.

Originally posted by Marhabbal Tuaregs as well as Switzerland (!) have been conquered by France during the 19th century.

France never controlled the Saharan tribes. The Foriegn Legion was incessiantly fighting them, that doesn't count as conqured. Just because the Great Powers may have recognised France's soverignty that doesn't mean the Tuareg did.

Originally posted by Marhabbal No Thailand was de facto conquered by Japan during WWII

I don't think very short war-time occupataions should count. The conqurer should sucessfully occupy the country, not invade and get defeated. Thailand still fails because it has been occupied by several other Southeast Asian powers of the years.

Originally posted by Joinville Sweden, the heartland of which has never successfully been invaded and occupied by a foreign power. At best there were medieval and early modern dynastic disputes which led to civil war, dividing the country into factions. But no clear-cut case of a foreign amy with no local support conquering it (or perhaps bothering with it).

Didn't Russia control Sweden at one point? I seem to recall that but aren't sure. If they didn't then Sweden counts.

Originally posted by Jagiello and of course Napoleon took it....and burned it.

Originally posted by Sarmata It was actually the Russians who burned Moscow, which left Napoleon secluded and with little shelter or supply.

In War and Peace Tolstoy ridcules the French or Russian burnt it arguments with quite an effective argument. Tolstoy points out that when a large army camps in a deserted wooden city a fire is bound to break out. It didn't need anyone to deliberately start it.

War and Peace is a novel

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Joinville Sweden, the heartland of which has never successfully been invaded and occupied by a foreign power. At best there were medieval and early modern dynastic disputes which led to civil war, dividing the country into factions. But no clear-cut case of a foreign amy with no local support conquering it (or perhaps bothering with it). Didn't Russia control Sweden at one point? I seem to recall that but aren't sure. If they didn't then Sweden counts

Originally posted by John Lenon  Sorry guys , but Poles were invited to Moscow by one part of local nobles and there where no any war action during Polish-Lithuanian army came into Moscow.  Let's remember tjat at this times there was something like "civil war" in  Russia. And the day when Polish-Lithuanian soldiers had been evicted from Moscow is celebrated like day of Russian people unity(end of civil war - Trouble times) , but not the of victory over Polish-Lithuanian armies. What for XIV century, yes the big part of Ancient Russia (Kievan Rus) were controlled by Lithunia (but really it was  Lithunian-Russian state - competitor of Moscow state). What for mongols, yes they conquered Russian lands (those that belongs to Polsih-Lithuaninan Commonwelath too), but all they want was  tribute. All russians lands(either those were in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) at this century where rulled by local (later grand) dukes. Novgorod was independnet till 1478 (annexed to Moscow state).

Originally posted by Majkes   So why You needed uprising to get rid of Danes?

It was an uprising (several, actually) to get rid of the Union king. It was an internal affair,  not Swedes versus Danes. Half of the Swedes were on the union side, half wanted to get rid of it.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by kurt the turkish people of anatolia have never been conquered. the people who lived in anatolia before the turks have. as i mentioned in my post, turkish presence in anatolia began after the battle of manzikert in 1071. Turkey has been conqured for exactly the same reason that Australia and America have been conqured, and thats without pointing out that there was much more intermixing between pre-turk anatolians and turks than migrant Australians and aboriginies.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Originally posted by Majkes   So why You needed uprising to get rid of Danes? It was an uprising (several, actually) to get rid of the Union king. It was an internal affair,  not Swedes versus Danes. Half of the Swedes were on the union side, half wanted to get rid of it.