有哪个国家在其整个历史中始终保持未被征服和独立的状态？（下篇）
正文翻译
评论翻译
Gareth Adamson
'Country', 'unconquered' and 'independent' are all terms with highly malleable meanings that become less and less clear the further you go back in time.
“国家”、“未被征服”和“独立”都是具有高度可塑性的术语，随着时间的推移，它们的含义变得越来越不清晰。
'Country', 'unconquered' and 'independent' are all terms with highly malleable meanings that become less and less clear the further you go back in time.
“国家”、“未被征服”和“独立”都是具有高度可塑性的术语，随着时间的推移，它们的含义变得越来越不清晰。
A country is a political entity. It always has a territory, perhaps associatied with a people (who regard themselves as having a shared nationality) and/or a language, maybe a legal code. Yet peoples can and do mix and change, and the dividing lines between them can be extremely unclear, territories shift over time, and peoples can learn new languages, and none of these need coincide with any of the others. Today's countries are of vastly differing ages, and it is often disputable whether a previous political entity really is the same 'country' as its supposed modern counterpart.
国家是一个政治实体。它总是有一个领土，可能与一个人民（他们认为自己有共同的民族）和/或一种语言相关联，也许有一个法律代码。然而，人民可以混合和改变，他们之间的分界线可能极其不清晰，领土会随着时间而变化，人民可以学习新的语言，这些都不需要与其他任何事情相一致。今天的国家年龄差异巨大，而先前的政治实体是否真的与其所谓的现代对应实体相同，往往存在争议。
国家是一个政治实体。它总是有一个领土，可能与一个人民（他们认为自己有共同的民族）和/或一种语言相关联，也许有一个法律代码。然而，人民可以混合和改变，他们之间的分界线可能极其不清晰，领土会随着时间而变化，人民可以学习新的语言，这些都不需要与其他任何事情相一致。今天的国家年龄差异巨大，而先前的政治实体是否真的与其所谓的现代对应实体相同，往往存在争议。
And a country is not even necessarily associated with a people. Often in the past, it would be the personal possession of a ruler and just imposed on any peoples (or parts of peoples) who happened to be in the territory at the time.
并且一个国家不一定与人民相关联。在过去，它通常是统治者的私人财产，只是强加给那些碰巧在领土上的人民（或人民的一部分）。
并且一个国家不一定与人民相关联。在过去，它通常是统治者的私人财产，只是强加给那些碰巧在领土上的人民（或人民的一部分）。
Nationalities are often the product of political entities, not the foundation on which they are built. Scotland is a particularly good example. The Scots were an invading tribe from what is now Ireland, who, around 700-900AD, managed to impose their rule and their language (Gaelic) on the Picts of what is now northern Scotland, and in the following two centuries, to impose their rule but not their language on the English/Welsh people in what is now southern Scotland. Since then, a majority of Scots have been of English/Welsh descent and English speaking, yet that does not stop them calling themselves and indeed being Scots.
民族通常是政治实体的产物，而不是它们建立的基础。苏格兰是一个特别好的例子。苏格人是来自现在的爱尔兰的入侵部落，在公元700-900年左右，成功地将他们的统治和他们的语言（盖尔语）强加给了现在苏格兰北部的皮克特人，并在接下来的两个世纪里将他们的统治但不是他们的语言强加给了现在苏格兰南部的英格兰/威尔士人。从那时起，大多数苏格人都是英格兰/威尔士人的后代，说英语，但这并不妨碍他们称自己为苏格兰人，事实上也是苏格兰人。
民族通常是政治实体的产物，而不是它们建立的基础。苏格兰是一个特别好的例子。苏格人是来自现在的爱尔兰的入侵部落，在公元700-900年左右，成功地将他们的统治和他们的语言（盖尔语）强加给了现在苏格兰北部的皮克特人，并在接下来的两个世纪里将他们的统治但不是他们的语言强加给了现在苏格兰南部的英格兰/威尔士人。从那时起，大多数苏格人都是英格兰/威尔士人的后代，说英语，但这并不妨碍他们称自己为苏格兰人，事实上也是苏格兰人。
The modern concept of political sovereignty is often held to date from the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which of course applied only to the western part of Europe. This fixed (among other things) that sovereignty was to be considered to apply at the level of the princely states of Germany, even though they continued to be part of, and subject to the law courts of, the Holy Roman Empire. Were those princely states then countries? Was Germany? It is only with the foundation of the UN and the spread of membership over the whole world that we have anything approaching real legal clarity over what is a nation state. Even then, it doesn't necessarily coincide with what is a country. (e.g. Scotland, again.)
现代政治主权的概念通常被认为起源于威斯特伐利亚和约（1648年），当然这只适用于欧洲西部地区。该条约固定了诸如德国王侯国等级别的主权应被视为实际存在，尽管它们仍是神圣罗马帝国的一部分，并受法院的约束。那些王国级别的州是否就是国家？德国呢？直到联合国的建立和全球会员的扩散，我们才有接近真正的法律清晰度，以确定一个国家是什么。即使这样，它也不一定与什么是国家相符（例如再次提到的苏格兰）。
现代政治主权的概念通常被认为起源于威斯特伐利亚和约（1648年），当然这只适用于欧洲西部地区。该条约固定了诸如德国王侯国等级别的主权应被视为实际存在，尽管它们仍是神圣罗马帝国的一部分，并受法院的约束。那些王国级别的州是否就是国家？德国呢？直到联合国的建立和全球会员的扩散，我们才有接近真正的法律清晰度，以确定一个国家是什么。即使这样，它也不一定与什么是国家相符（例如再次提到的苏格兰）。
Even ignoring that confusion, sovereignty is only a legal concept, and one can still in many cases dispute the extent to which it really applies. In reality, politics is the art of the possible, and many different levels of political entities, with whatever influence or power over each other they can manage in practice, have existed at all levels throughout history.
即使忽略这种混淆，主权仅仅是一个法律概念，在许多情况下人们仍然可以争论它到底适用的程度。实际上，政治是一种可能性的艺术，在历史上各个层次都存在着许多不同级别的政治实体，它们在实践中相互之间能够获得的影响力或权力也是不尽相同的。
即使忽略这种混淆，主权仅仅是一个法律概念，在许多情况下人们仍然可以争论它到底适用的程度。实际上，政治是一种可能性的艺术，在历史上各个层次都存在着许多不同级别的政治实体，它们在实践中相互之间能够获得的影响力或权力也是不尽相同的。
Trivially then, most of the new nations of Africa and South America arguably never existed as countries before they were decolonised, and have never been conquered since, and are therefore answers to the unqualified question. And there are other similar examples. Their unconquered status is highly correlated with the short time they have existed.
可以说，非洲和南美大多数新成立的国家在被殖民前基本上从未存在过，因此它们是无条件问题的答案。还有其他类似的例子。它们未被征服的状态与它们存在的时间短是高度相关的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
可以说，非洲和南美大多数新成立的国家在被殖民前基本上从未存在过，因此它们是无条件问题的答案。还有其他类似的例子。它们未被征服的状态与它们存在的时间短是高度相关的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Qualifying the question by limiting candidates to countries with 'ancient' histories and choosing an artificial minimum for 'ancient' of existence since 600BC makes it pretty much impossible for any country to qualify, since concepts of nationality and rulership have changed so much over those millennia, and peoples have had so much time to move and mix, and political entities to fracture and shift. Thus it generates the answer you expected: none.
将问题的限定条件设定为只考虑拥有“古老”历史的国家，并将“古老”的最低标准限定为公元前600年以来的存在，使得任何一个国家都几乎不可能符合条件，因为在这几千年间，民族和统治的概念已经发生了如此大的变化，人们也有足够的时间去迁移和融合，政治实体也可能会分裂和转移。因此，这种问题得出了你所期望的答案：没有国家。
将问题的限定条件设定为只考虑拥有“古老”历史的国家，并将“古老”的最低标准限定为公元前600年以来的存在，使得任何一个国家都几乎不可能符合条件，因为在这几千年间，民族和统治的概念已经发生了如此大的变化，人们也有足够的时间去迁移和融合，政治实体也可能会分裂和转移。因此，这种问题得出了你所期望的答案：没有国家。
Nepal (changed from Burma, which was a brainslip) and Bhutan (thanks, Ashutosh Mehndiratta), with the Himalayas to deter conquest and immigration alike, perhaps come closest. But even they don't come very close. Neither was a single political entity for most of the medi period, and both of them have been subject in varying degrees at various times to powerful neighbours.
尼泊尔（改自缅甸，这是个笔误）和不丹（感谢Ashutosh Mehndiratta提供的信息），由于喜马拉雅山脉能够阻止征服和移民，可能最接近该条件。但它们甚至也达不到非常接近的程度。在中世纪的大部分时间里，它们都不是单一的政治实体，并且在不同的时间和程度上都曾受到强大邻国的影响。
尼泊尔（改自缅甸，这是个笔误）和不丹（感谢Ashutosh Mehndiratta提供的信息），由于喜马拉雅山脉能够阻止征服和移民，可能最接近该条件。但它们甚至也达不到非常接近的程度。在中世纪的大部分时间里，它们都不是单一的政治实体，并且在不同的时间和程度上都曾受到强大邻国的影响。
Mark Lipse
The answer to the question depends on context and perspective. To start with on must first define the terms "country", "conquest", and "independence." Each of these terms is subject to various definitions. So, the question is not easy to answer. Nevertheless, I will make two attempts.
回答这个问题需要考虑到不同的情境和视角。首先，我们必须定义“国家”、“征服”和“独立”这些术语。每个术语都有不同的定义。因此，这个问题并不容易回答。尽管如此，我将做两次假设。
The answer to the question depends on context and perspective. To start with on must first define the terms "country", "conquest", and "independence." Each of these terms is subject to various definitions. So, the question is not easy to answer. Nevertheless, I will make two attempts.
回答这个问题需要考虑到不同的情境和视角。首先，我们必须定义“国家”、“征服”和“独立”这些术语。每个术语都有不同的定义。因此，这个问题并不容易回答。尽管如此，我将做两次假设。
If we define a country as a geographical entity, then there is not a single unconquered bit of land on earth. It is typical of every region or locality in the world that it was successively settled by newly arriving peoples, who would either subjugate the earlier peoples or drive them out or absorb them.
如果我们将一个国家定义为地理实体，那么地球上没有任何一块未被征服的土地。世界上每个地区或地点通常都是由不断到来的民族定居，他们要么征服早期的民族，要么赶走他们或吸收他们。
如果我们将一个国家定义为地理实体，那么地球上没有任何一块未被征服的土地。世界上每个地区或地点通常都是由不断到来的民族定居，他们要么征服早期的民族，要么赶走他们或吸收他们。
On the other hand, if one defines a country from its founding moment as a modern independent state, then one will probably be able to define various nations. Using a country's official independence date as a criterion, would could conclude that the majority of modern states have never been conquered. To name a few, United States or Venezuela or India have never been conquered after their gaining independence.
另一方面，如果一个国家从成立瞬间定义为现代独立国家，那么我们可能能够定义不同的国家。使用一个国家的正式独立日期作为标准，可以得出大多数现代国家从未被征服的结论。例如，美国、委内瑞拉或印度在获得独立后从未被征服。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
另一方面，如果一个国家从成立瞬间定义为现代独立国家，那么我们可能能够定义不同的国家。使用一个国家的正式独立日期作为标准，可以得出大多数现代国家从未被征服的结论。例如，美国、委内瑞拉或印度在获得独立后从未被征服。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
To demonstrate the contentiousness of last definition, let us consider the example of Russia. Tsar Peter the Great can rightfully be considered the founding father of the modern Russian state. During and after Peter the Great's reign, Russia has been invaded - and even suffered defeat in battle or war - yet no nation has been able to conquer it and extinguish its independence. Nevertheless, this example is also rather contrived. To understand why, one must consider that Russia does not date its existence from Peter the Great's reign onwards. According to Wikipedia: "The development of the modern day Russian state is traced from Kievan Rus' through Vladimir-Suzdal and the Grand Duchy of Moscow to the Tsardom of Russia, and then the Russian Empire." Consider then that Kievan Rus, first disintegrated and was finally destroyed by the Mongols, while the Grand Duchy of Moscow has been occupied briefly by the Poles.
为了证明最后一个定义的争议性，让我们考虑俄罗斯的例子。彼得大帝可以被认为是现代俄罗斯国家的奠基人。在彼得大帝统治期间和之后，俄罗斯曾遭受入侵，甚至在战争中遭受失败，但没有一个国家能够征服它并扼杀它的独立。然而，这个例子也相当牵强。要理解为什么，我们必须考虑到俄罗斯并不是从彼得大帝的统治开始算起。根据维基百科的说法：“现代俄罗斯国家的发展可以追溯到基辅罗斯，经过弗拉基米尔-苏兹达尔和莫斯科大公国，然后是沙皇俄国，再到俄罗斯帝国。”然后考虑到基辅罗斯曾经解体，并最终被蒙古人摧毁，而莫斯科大公国曾经短暂地被波兰占领。
为了证明最后一个定义的争议性，让我们考虑俄罗斯的例子。彼得大帝可以被认为是现代俄罗斯国家的奠基人。在彼得大帝统治期间和之后，俄罗斯曾遭受入侵，甚至在战争中遭受失败，但没有一个国家能够征服它并扼杀它的独立。然而，这个例子也相当牵强。要理解为什么，我们必须考虑到俄罗斯并不是从彼得大帝的统治开始算起。根据维基百科的说法：“现代俄罗斯国家的发展可以追溯到基辅罗斯，经过弗拉基米尔-苏兹达尔和莫斯科大公国，然后是沙皇俄国，再到俄罗斯帝国。”然后考虑到基辅罗斯曾经解体，并最终被蒙古人摧毁，而莫斯科大公国曾经短暂地被波兰占领。
Greg Moylan
Tonga was never conquered by anyone and remained a sovereign state under a treaty of friendship with Britain until 1970, when it became a member of the Commonwealth in its own right.
EDIT: My answer still stands. Tonga was never anyone's vassal. Its treaty of Friendship with Great Britain was a treaty of free association, not one of vassalage or submission, just as its membership of the Commonwealth of Nations is one of free association.
汤加从未被任何人征服，并在与英国的友好条约下保持主权状态，直到1970年成为英联邦成员国。
编辑：我的答案仍然适用。汤加从未是任何人的附庸。它与英国的友好条约是一项自由联合条约，而不是附庸关系或屈服的条约，就像它加入英联邦国家组织一样是自由联合。
Tonga was never conquered by anyone and remained a sovereign state under a treaty of friendship with Britain until 1970, when it became a member of the Commonwealth in its own right.
EDIT: My answer still stands. Tonga was never anyone's vassal. Its treaty of Friendship with Great Britain was a treaty of free association, not one of vassalage or submission, just as its membership of the Commonwealth of Nations is one of free association.
汤加从未被任何人征服，并在与英国的友好条约下保持主权状态，直到1970年成为英联邦成员国。
编辑：我的答案仍然适用。汤加从未是任何人的附庸。它与英国的友好条约是一项自由联合条约，而不是附庸关系或屈服的条约，就像它加入英联邦国家组织一样是自由联合。
Gwydion Madawc Williams
No, I'm fairly sure not. Not counting from 600 BC, at least.
Nepal was mentioned. Moot if it existed as a definite entity that long ago. And was at times a vassel state to various Indian empires.
不，我相当确定没有。至少不从公元前600年开始算起。尼泊尔被提及过。如果它在那么久远的时候已经存在作为一个明确的实体，那也无关紧要。它曾经是印度各帝国的附属国。
No, I'm fairly sure not. Not counting from 600 BC, at least.
Nepal was mentioned. Moot if it existed as a definite entity that long ago. And was at times a vassel state to various Indian empires.
不，我相当确定没有。至少不从公元前600年开始算起。尼泊尔被提及过。如果它在那么久远的时候已经存在作为一个明确的实体，那也无关紧要。它曾经是印度各帝国的附属国。
Bhutan's history is unclear, but it was definitely conquered in the 7th century AD by the Tibetan king Songtsän Gampo.
Thailand is dominated by a branch of the Tai peoples, who arrived from what is now China around 700 AD. Conquered and largely absorbed the older inhabitants.
不过不清楚不丹的历史，但它肯定在公元7世纪被藏王松赞干布征服了。泰国被泰族人控制，他们大约于公元700年左右从现在的中国来到这里。征服并基本上吸收了老一代的居民。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Thailand is dominated by a branch of the Tai peoples, who arrived from what is now China around 700 AD. Conquered and largely absorbed the older inhabitants.
不过不清楚不丹的历史，但它肯定在公元7世纪被藏王松赞干布征服了。泰国被泰族人控制，他们大约于公元700年左右从现在的中国来到这里。征服并基本上吸收了老一代的居民。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I think you'd find something of the sort everywhere.
Japan came closest. Probably conquered by the Yayoi people
from mainland Asia around the third century BC, but their own legendary history had them develope within Japan and ruled by descendants of the sun-goddess. Saw off two invasions by Kublai Khan, and never bothered by any other ruler of China. But defeated and occupied in 1945, of course.
我认为你会发现这样的情况在任何地方都有。日本最接近符合条件。大约在公元前3世纪被来自亚洲大陆的弥生族征服，但他们自己的传说历史表明他们在日本发展，并由太阳女神的后代统治。抵御了两次忽必烈的入侵，从未被中国任何其他统治者困扰。但当然在1945年被击败并占领。
Japan came closest. Probably conquered by the Yayoi people
from mainland Asia around the third century BC, but their own legendary history had them develope within Japan and ruled by descendants of the sun-goddess. Saw off two invasions by Kublai Khan, and never bothered by any other ruler of China. But defeated and occupied in 1945, of course.
我认为你会发现这样的情况在任何地方都有。日本最接近符合条件。大约在公元前3世纪被来自亚洲大陆的弥生族征服，但他们自己的传说历史表明他们在日本发展，并由太阳女神的后代统治。抵御了两次忽必烈的入侵，从未被中国任何其他统治者困扰。但当然在1945年被击败并占领。
Akash S
It's Antarctica.
是南极洲。
It's Antarctica.
是南极洲。
You were seeking for country I give you a continent. I believe that Antartica is never conquered nor invaded.
I don't know much about history so I think it's right. I think that all the countries are conquered(directly or indirectly) except from Antarctica. Hope you didn't take it otherwise.
你在寻找一个国家，我给你一个大陆。我相信南极洲从未被征服或入侵过。
我对历史了解不多，所以我认为这是对的。我认为所有的国家都被征服了(直接或间接)，除了南极洲。希望你没有拿错。
I don't know much about history so I think it's right. I think that all the countries are conquered(directly or indirectly) except from Antarctica. Hope you didn't take it otherwise.
你在寻找一个国家，我给你一个大陆。我相信南极洲从未被征服或入侵过。
我对历史了解不多，所以我认为这是对的。我认为所有的国家都被征服了(直接或间接)，除了南极洲。希望你没有拿错。
Antarctica has no government and it is considered to be politically neutral. Several countries claim sovereignty in certain regions.
There is no economic activity in Antarctica at present, except for fishing off the coast and small-scale tourism, both based outside Antarctica.
南极洲没有政府，它被认为是政治中立的。几个国家声称对某些地区拥有主权。
南极洲目前没有任何经济活动，除了沿海捕鱼和小规模旅游业，两者都以南极洲以外的地方为基础。
There is no economic activity in Antarctica at present, except for fishing off the coast and small-scale tourism, both based outside Antarctica.
南极洲没有政府，它被认为是政治中立的。几个国家声称对某些地区拥有主权。
南极洲目前没有任何经济活动，除了沿海捕鱼和小规模旅游业，两者都以南极洲以外的地方为基础。
Marlin Pierce
Can we count relatively newer countries which might disregard nations which had been there before and/or ones which got independence? Then the list might include Australia, New Zealand, The United State of America, Canada, much (but not all) of the rest of the Americas, Israel and the Soviet unx. The US did not win the war of 1812 but if you accept that it did not lose, then it has never been conquered. The People’s Republic of China since its start from the Revolution has never been conquered.
我们可以计算相对较新的国家，这些国家可能忽视了之前存在的国家和/或获得独立的国家吗？那么这个列表可能包括澳大利亚、新西兰、美利坚合众国、加拿大，以及其他大部分（但不是全部）的美洲国家、以色列和苏联。美国没有赢得1812年战争，但如果你认为它没有失败，那么它从未被征服过。中华人民共和国自从革命开始以来从未被征服过。
Can we count relatively newer countries which might disregard nations which had been there before and/or ones which got independence? Then the list might include Australia, New Zealand, The United State of America, Canada, much (but not all) of the rest of the Americas, Israel and the Soviet unx. The US did not win the war of 1812 but if you accept that it did not lose, then it has never been conquered. The People’s Republic of China since its start from the Revolution has never been conquered.
我们可以计算相对较新的国家，这些国家可能忽视了之前存在的国家和/或获得独立的国家吗？那么这个列表可能包括澳大利亚、新西兰、美利坚合众国、加拿大，以及其他大部分（但不是全部）的美洲国家、以色列和苏联。美国没有赢得1812年战争，但如果你认为它没有失败，那么它从未被征服过。中华人民共和国自从革命开始以来从未被征服过。
Maybe the Soviet unx is the best example. It did experience defeats but was never conquered and its history is complete.
Many countries in South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Canada since they got independence have never been defeated. The US Monroe doctrine helped with this. Mexico however was conquered by France when the US was busy with its Civil War and could not exercise the Monroe Doctrine.
也许苏联是最好的例子。它确实经历了一些失败，但从未被征服过，它的历史是完整的。南美洲、中美洲、加勒比地区和加拿大的许多国家自从获得独立以来从未被击败过。美国的门罗主义政策对此起到了帮助作用。然而，当美国忙于内战而无法执行门罗主义政策时，墨西哥被法国征服。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Many countries in South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Canada since they got independence have never been defeated. The US Monroe doctrine helped with this. Mexico however was conquered by France when the US was busy with its Civil War and could not exercise the Monroe Doctrine.
也许苏联是最好的例子。它确实经历了一些失败，但从未被征服过，它的历史是完整的。南美洲、中美洲、加勒比地区和加拿大的许多国家自从获得独立以来从未被击败过。美国的门罗主义政策对此起到了帮助作用。然而，当美国忙于内战而无法执行门罗主义政策时，墨西哥被法国征服。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Here I have allowed countries some of which started by revolution. When a conquest is successful does that start a new country?
So when the Normans conquered did that restart the clock, in which case England has had defeats but never been conquered. It was the Britons and Anglo-Saxons before then which were conquered. It depends if you consider William of Orange to be a Civil War or a Conquest. Also it relies on the Oliver Cromwell revolution to be a Civil War and considering Civil Wars to not count.
在这里，我允许一些由革命开始的国家。当征服成功时，这是否意味着启动了一个新的国家呢？所以当诺曼人征服时，这是否重新开始计时，如果是这样，那么英格兰曾经经历了一些失败，但从未被征服过。在那之前，被征服的是不列颠人和盎格鲁-撒克逊人。这取决于你是否认为威廉·奥兰治是内战还是征服。还有，它依赖于奥利弗·克伦威尔革命被视为内战，并认为内战不算在内。
So when the Normans conquered did that restart the clock, in which case England has had defeats but never been conquered. It was the Britons and Anglo-Saxons before then which were conquered. It depends if you consider William of Orange to be a Civil War or a Conquest. Also it relies on the Oliver Cromwell revolution to be a Civil War and considering Civil Wars to not count.
在这里，我允许一些由革命开始的国家。当征服成功时，这是否意味着启动了一个新的国家呢？所以当诺曼人征服时，这是否重新开始计时，如果是这样，那么英格兰曾经经历了一些失败，但从未被征服过。在那之前，被征服的是不列颠人和盎格鲁-撒克逊人。这取决于你是否认为威廉·奥兰治是内战还是征服。还有，它依赖于奥利弗·克伦威尔革命被视为内战，并认为内战不算在内。
If we consider countries which originated in lands which had been conquered, then that rules out pretty much everything. Many cases are ruled out from the country forming by conquering what was there before. That rules out all the Americas, Australia and New Zealand.
如果我们考虑起源于被征服土地的国家，那么几乎所有的国家都被排除在外。许多情况是通过征服之前的领土来形成国家。这排除了所有的美洲国家、澳大利亚和新西兰。
如果我们考虑起源于被征服土地的国家，那么几乎所有的国家都被排除在外。许多情况是通过征服之前的领土来形成国家。这排除了所有的美洲国家、澳大利亚和新西兰。
Iddo Kedem
San Marino, independent since around 300 AD, was never attacked because of its mountain forts. Additionally, Napoleon didn't attack them becuase they are a republic and Hitler didn't because they were fascists.
圣马力诺自公元300年左右开始独立，因为其山城堡从未受到攻击。此外，拿破仑没有攻击他们，因为他们是共和国；希特勒也没有攻击他们，因为他们是法西斯主义者。
San Marino, independent since around 300 AD, was never attacked because of its mountain forts. Additionally, Napoleon didn't attack them becuase they are a republic and Hitler didn't because they were fascists.
圣马力诺自公元300年左右开始独立，因为其山城堡从未受到攻击。此外，拿破仑没有攻击他们，因为他们是共和国；希特勒也没有攻击他们，因为他们是法西斯主义者。
Petri Haikio
Sweden.
Never occupied by anyone, ever.
Not one war ever fought in swedish territory, all the wars were fought in danish territory (today south sweden) or in norwegian territory (today west sweden).
The swedes fought tons of wars, but never in mainland sweden.
瑞典。从未被任何人占领过。瑞典领土上从未发生过一场战争，所有的战争都发生在丹麦领土（今天的瑞典南部）或挪威领土（今天的瑞典西部）。瑞典人参加了大量战争，但从未在瑞典本土上进行过战斗。
Sweden.
Never occupied by anyone, ever.
Not one war ever fought in swedish territory, all the wars were fought in danish territory (today south sweden) or in norwegian territory (today west sweden).
The swedes fought tons of wars, but never in mainland sweden.
瑞典。从未被任何人占领过。瑞典领土上从未发生过一场战争，所有的战争都发生在丹麦领土（今天的瑞典南部）或挪威领土（今天的瑞典西部）。瑞典人参加了大量战争，但从未在瑞典本土上进行过战斗。
Quinten Pilon
Finnish war 1808 - a war fought on Swedish territory (Finland was part of Sweden)
芬兰战争1808年 - 一场在瑞典领土上进行的战争（芬兰当时是瑞典的一部分）。
Finnish war 1808 - a war fought on Swedish territory (Finland was part of Sweden)
芬兰战争1808年 - 一场在瑞典领土上进行的战争（芬兰当时是瑞典的一部分）。
Paweł Jakubiec
It's not true. Army under the command of Polish king Sigismundus III Vasa invaded Sweden in 1598. He fought against Charles III and lost his chances for Swedish throne after the battle of Stangebro (battle of lixoping) on 25 September 1598 (200 km to Stockholm).
这不是真的。由波兰国王西吉斯蒙德三世·瓦萨指挥的军队于1598年入侵瑞典。他与查理三世交战，并在1598年9月25日的斯坦格布罗之战（林雪平之战）中失去了对瑞典王位的机会（距离斯德哥尔摩200公里）。
It's not true. Army under the command of Polish king Sigismundus III Vasa invaded Sweden in 1598. He fought against Charles III and lost his chances for Swedish throne after the battle of Stangebro (battle of lixoping) on 25 September 1598 (200 km to Stockholm).
这不是真的。由波兰国王西吉斯蒙德三世·瓦萨指挥的军队于1598年入侵瑞典。他与查理三世交战，并在1598年9月25日的斯坦格布罗之战（林雪平之战）中失去了对瑞典王位的机会（距离斯德哥尔摩200公里）。
很赞 4
收藏