Oldest Alliances still here today

[Ray Matveyev]

You guys don't have cybernation's 6th oldest alliance, Wolfpack was formed February 27th, 2006.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Wolfpack

Oh, really?

http://cybernations.wikia.com/index.php?ti...amp;oldid=53009

"The wolfpack was formed in January 2007. Wolfpack is a multicolor alliance bound together by the principles of honor, courage and commitment. Its member nations cover the full spectrum of political ideologues and band together for mutual defense and fun."

[Sunstar]

You guys don't have cybernation's 6th oldest alliance, Wolfpack was formed February 27th, 2006.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Wolfpack

The opening sentence of the article says February 2007, and their first recorded history is The Unjust War. My guess is that the 2006 in the sidebar is a typo.

[Starbuck]

The opening sentence of the article says February 2007, and their first recorded history is The Unjust War. My guess is that the 2006 in the sidebar is a typo.

I am mistaken then. Seen this thread and started browzing alliances.

[dragonknight1000]

this is pretty cool

and UPN was formed on the same day as TOOL?! I did not know that (used to diplo to UPN for a while, may have asked but forgot )

either way, the next 2 weeks should be sweet for both alliances (joint UPN/TOOL birthday celebration? )

[JWConner]

Veritas Aequitas was created Sept. 7, 2007 Official Announcement (announcement late because of UJW)

[Desperado]

I think I heard some cool facts from magicninja of GATO about how there are now no nations still in the game older than GATO and the closest is now 2 days younger than the founding date of GATO.

[The Eye]

This thread is not about the events surrounding VE's disbandment

[Durabo]

MrFixitOnline, or MFO.

We had been around for a while before this, but out official DoE was posted on May 15th, 2007. It makes sene to take this as a definite date, although as I mentioned previously we are probably older by a couple of months.

A link to our DoE, which I assume is valid proof - http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=68933

[Bob Janova]

Listing both dates is a good compromise. There aren't many alliances that can really follow a single strand of history between incarnations, so it's not a problem that's going to be particularly large.

[Queen Hoopdy the 1st]

Farkistan (Fark) was founded on January 2, 2007.

MHA is already on the list.

[McShady511]

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/RnR

according to the Wiki page we were established on 13th of November, 2006. please add us!

thanks!

[USMC123]

Man I wish we hadn't destroyed all the records of the first Tetris... We should be on this list....

/me glares at Kean

[magicninja]

I think I heard some cool facts from magicninja of GATO about how there are now no nations still in the game older than GATO and the closest is now 2 days younger than the founding date of GATO.

This is true and has been as long as Das has been the oldest nation but I didn't notice until recently. Only Admin and the game are older than GATO now. While there may be 2-3 nations that were around then but have since re-rolled they don't count anymore since it's not on the official record.

[drugsup]

Keep on topic.

[Capitalistic Policie]

GDA was officially formed on October 11th as shown here : http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=27502

That would put it in front of BTA

[magicninja]

Edit: Did DasGirl quit? Kind of sad, I also know Pope Hope of ODN quit as well. Seems llike new faces with not much old ones left.

Nah, She's back home in GATO and is CN's current oldest nation. GATO predates the founding of Acornia by 2 days though.

[drugsup]

Updated

[Ashoka the Great]

Nordreich (NoR)

Founded October 13, 2006. Disbanded May 2, 2007. Re-formed May 6, 2009.

All information taken from the CN Wiki.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[Earl Dumarest]

You list WAPA with a date of December 12, 2006, and yes, some other sources do also quote that date, however they are clearly wrong.

Look at the alliance seniority dates of these 3 members...

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=55225

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=55722

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=56240

This evidence shows that WAPA has been in continual existence since at least 23 October 2006.

[Auctor]

You list WAPA with a date of December 12, 2006, and yes, some other sources do also quote that date, however they are clearly wrong.

Look at the alliance seniority dates of these 3 members...

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=55225

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=55722

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...Nation_ID=56240

This evidence shows that WAPA has been in continual existence since at least 23 October 2006.

I believe that is a relic from before there was alliance seniority data displayed, everyone from before their time had their alliance seniority set to their nation age.

[Kill Joy]

OMFG - December 3 2007

[Ch33kY]

Old Guard was formed on the February 19, 2007.

[Seipher Caim]

Valhalla : 26 february 2007

Official DoE : http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...=54894&st=0

[Earl Dumarest]

I believe that is a relic from before there was alliance seniority data displayed, everyone from before their time had their alliance seniority set to their nation age.

Yes, that makes perfect sense!

[Näktergal]

The reason disbanded and reformed alliances are kept is because they are the same alliance

Are they really, though?

In a number of cases, a reformed alliance is created (or recreated) by someone other than the person who created the original alliance (or the person in power when the original version was disbanded). They don't always manage to maintain a direct line of descent from the original, and often, at least some of the former members don't recognize the validity of the new version. And ultimately, the alliance that is recreated is almost always different in a number of ways from the original. While they may choose to deliberately claim the name, symbolism, and heritage of the original alliance, a very valid argument can be made that they lack direct continuity with the original alliance (and thus, are a different alliance).

If someone reformed NAAC or LUE tomorrow, with only a few of the original members joining (and other former members objecting to said "reformation") and nearly 3 years having passed since NAAC disbanded, how many people would recognize and accept it as a legitimate rebirth of the original alliance, rather than a new alliance wearing old clothes?

If someone were to declare that they were reforming INC (the Imperial Nations Coalition) tomorrow, in spite of the fact that it only existed for about a month and has been dead for 4 years, would they immediately count as the oldest alliance in CN?

In the real world, how many people consider the "Atari" that exists today to be the same Atari that existed in 1980? To most people who know the history, they are two entirely different companies, with the modern version simply having bought the name for the purpose of brand recognition, to fool people who don't know better into thinking they're related to the original in some way, rather than being a company founded in the early 90's with no real connection to the original. Yet the modern company uses the name, the symbols, and puts out games cashing in on the original company's intellectual property.

In CN, the Wiki deliberately differentiates between the first and second incarnations of disbanded/reformed alliances, which is implicit acceptance of the idea that they're different alliances. Many people consider reformations to be the "second version" of an alliance, rather than a continuation of the first version. Which makes it VERY problematic for any attempt to document oldest alliances while counting reformed alliances as the originals, and ignoring the "interregnum" between them.

And that's not even counting the fact that it means alliances with such periods of discontinuity have technically existed for less time than ones that are technically younger - for example, you've got IAA ranked #21 while RIA is #22, yet IAA has only existed for 938 days while RIA has existed for 1268 days. Wouldn't that make RIA the older alliance?

Nor does it take into account the question of name changes. Are CATO and GATO the same alliance for purposes of dating? Should TAB technically be considered to have been founded on Oct 12, 2006, since it considers itself the direct descendant of the original BTA, only with a name change? For that matter, what does that do to the claim of the current BTA, recreated 32 months after the original BTA became TAB? If we accept the premise that only the name matters, and that any claim of reformation is valid, does that mean someone could attempt to reform CATO tomorrow, and preempt GATO's claim on CATO's founding date and identity? Does every alliance that has merged into a larger one forfeit all right or claim on their past heritage the moment the name changes?

If someone attempted to reform Camelot tomorrow, would Athens object? Would Ragnarok be annoyed if someone wanted to reform the Atlantic Shadow Confederation? How about IRON and CON? Or do we just assume that a merger isn't the combination of two entities, but their destruction?

Ultimately, the problem is, unless we're talking about alliances that were born and maintained the same identity continuously from birth to now, any oldest alliances list is going to have a hell of a lot of asterisks on it.