Follow Scandinavia and the World:
Facebook   Twitter   Tumblr  

How old?

fullview 993x600


How old?

I’ve drawn Denmark as younger than Sweden and Norway a few times, but that had to do with the age of the landmass. This shows how old the Nordics are as countries.

Denmark’s birth is from when it became a united country instead of tribes fighting each other, Sweden is from King Gustav Vasa's crowning and Norway, Finland and Iceland are from when they became fully independent from all other countries.

Norway is a bit tricky though, because he could also be said to be around the same age as Denmark. But this is how it's usually done.

22nd October 2010

5 days ago #9262826        

I like the fact that Denmark is both older and younger than Sweden and Norway :D

1 month ago #9247478        

Well, Denmark´s birth was in the 10th century though. Also, its the 3rd oldest country in Europe after France and San Marino


25 M
2 months ago #9221856        

It would be interesting if you could mention any differences between pre and post-1523 Sweden @Shitzadorina


25 M
3 months ago #9206707        

Well @Helbo15 that's not what you said the first time around. You said, and i quote: "Sweden and Norway are just rebel states" and "As long as Sweden and Norway exists Denmark has the right to their lands". Thats quite a long way from saying that you meant we are all descended from the same Germanic/Northern European stock. And yes, i was trolling when i said that Danes were descended from Swedes, i dont actually take Tacitus at face value. But now i am convinced you must be trolling too.


29 M
3 months ago #9206245        

@Shitzadorina @Svamlet

I agree there is no way we can be sure about anything in the first many 1000 years after the last iceage. I only brought it up to explain how Tacitus in no way Ever could be right in his statements and that if he is wrong in this aspect alone then the rest must be questioned as mere speculations and not facts and as such cannot be used as a accurate historical reference some of it could potentially be used to say There were at his time a people both in area's today known as Sweden and Denmark where they united as one or divided as many we don't really know because Romans didn't really come up here too much hostile territory to go by for any Romans to safely know anything accurate about the areas..

and it is true that there have been several kings and tribes throught Denmark Sweeden and norway long before but it only makes them part of our legacy not necessarily the same as claiming they were Danish Swedish or Norwegians. mainly we can see our joint history as Vikings and as such is part of our DNA and our joint history not as part of individual countries.

And it is true the Vikings have a bad reputation in the English speaking part of the world even though we were mainly traders and farmers, we raided too all of us it was part of our culture and the Swedish was particular successful in the rivers of Russia and eastern Europe.

What I basically am trying to Say we have a common ancestry we have a common mindset, we have a common view of the world our parted history is much shorter than our joint history ever was we should combine our Nations strengths and not resort to fight over petty differences like slight language differences or the few cultural differences we got.

Scandinavia should be one again where each state will be a part of one nation with a capital some where in the middle either close to Oslo or close to Malmø in my opinion, the current capitals of each state can become the capital of the individual states of the nation.

it would make us stronger economically, stronger diplomatics and so on and it would make our views in EU much more influentially, if we choose to either be part of EU or just have a trade agreement still would make it better for us as a whole.


21 F
3 months ago #9206076        

...? What is exactly the standard of saying "this country is born at this time!"...?


53 F
3 months ago #9201040        

But Iceland was "born" in 874, when we "ran away" from our parent Norway, and dragged with us "parts" stolen from Wales and Ireland.
Then Norway came and put us in "roomprison" for running away. Thus We became "slaves" first to Norway then to Danmark. We only got "freed" in 1944...

3 months ago #9197177        

@Svamlet True, but if we'd go by constitution then all countries would have to change their foundations every new change within the constitution. And speaking of constitution, it's modern counterpart started to form much earlier than 1974.

Though historically, 1523 is seemingly the year most agree upon, as Sweden broke away from the Kalmar Union, and therefore became a separate nation from the union. Since we haven't had to ask another nation to govern us, or lose our right to govern ourselves, since this time, we can say that Sweden slowly became today's Sweden recognised by other nations. I think you forget at times that in order to be a nation other nations has to recognise it as one. Hence why Kosovo (for example) still is not recognised as a formal nation (I think China and Russia are still against it).

But I will agree with you, that Swedish history starts much earlier than 1523, but how many did recognise Sweden before that? That's trickier, since we didn't fight as many wars or procliam anything until that point, at least that has been historically well remembered. And as for who writes and decides this, I don't know. I would guess the people who wants answers.


25 M
4 months ago #9196105        

@Shitzadorina If we are to take it to it's logical extent then the modern Sweden was founded even later. Our current constitution was drafted in 1974 and all the changes that Gustav Vasa brought into the monarchy (like hereditary monarchy and that the king must be a Protestant) are negated by the fact that our king has no power anymore. Scania wasn't a part of Sweden in 1523 either and we hadn't reclaimed Gotland and Öland yet.

4 months ago #9194249        

@Svamlet As a Swede who's looked into Nordic history, let me define Sweden's birth like this. Yes, Sweden existed in one way long before 1523, we all agree to that. However, modern Sweden wasn't provlaimed until Gustav Vasa, who became our founding father when he broke out from the Kalmar Union. And you are not wrong by your arguments.

And secondly... we're all very bias when it comes to our own history. And as for what @Helbo15 says about the immigration to the North... he forgets that this was a period when the ice moved back and forth, and thus the animals would migrate depending on where things could grow. Humans most likely came with them. We cannot be sure when this happened exactly, but yes, they most likely came from Denmark or travelled through Denmark, but also they most likely also settled at times where the ocean divides us today. Water levels were lower and you could travel accross. But does it matter really from where people migrated when this was before any understandable writing (apart from cave paintings) existed?

Ps: as for the Viking successes, why would the Swedish vikings have bothered? They mostly traded. If you look at the map more closely you'll see that the coastline which most Vikings would travel is more prominent for Norway and Denmark than Sweden. Swedes travelled east and traded, or fought in wars south. And for remembering Danes, don't believe everything the British writes about Vikings, they tend to overdramatize the era A LOT. Remember, Vikings were mainly farmers. Raids were done, yes, but most stayed home to tend to their homes.

Add comment: Please Sign in or create an accout to comment.

View all 253 comments

Share Scandinavia and the World:

Latest comic in your News Feed:

Copyright © 2009-2014 Scandinavia and the World | Coded by Dayvi | Privacy Policy

Mepsu     Scandinavia and the World     Romantically Apocalyptic     StupidFox     Acero Tiburon     Awut     Niels     Humon Comics     Manala Next Door     Forum Peeps