Never forget that America’s dub actor once sounded like this.

Talk to me more about America please! Anything you want to discuss I’d love to hear.

Sure! Hmmm. I’ve touched on his naivety before, but I think it deserves a spotlight of its own. Post coming up tonight!

First, let’s just establish the fact that for the most part,
the nations are bound by their bosses’ orders.

“They accept their fate as it is and let their bosses order
them around.”

All right, good. Now that that’s out of the way, it’s
important to differentiate between what the nations represent and what they do.
The nations represent their people – they’re cultural personifications.

However, what’s ironic is that because the nations are
subordinated to their leaders, they often act in ways that goes against the best
interests of their people.

Basically, while the nations are personifications that
represent their people, they may not represent them well politically. There’s
an inherent tension between the reason why the nations exist (their people),
and whose interests they serve (their leaders/politicians).

Of course, this doesn’t mean to say that a government can’t
act in the best interest of their people, nor am I trying to justify or
minimize any wrong action taken by a nation as a result of an order given to
them. The point here is that there is an evident power imbalance between a
nation and their boss.

More often than not, the nations don’t have any other choice
but to listen to their boss, aside from the fact of whether the latter’s
intentions are good or bad.

Nonetheless, what I also intend to reveal is how the nations
are still able to exercise a sense of agency and resist their bosses to some
degree. Not only that, but there are times when the nations form a strong and
positive relationship with their boss.

Dictative Relationships:

Russia:

Russia is the epitome of a nation who is forced to comply
with their boss’ orders.

His bosses are “notorious” for making unreasonable demands. It’s
even alluded that they’ve tortured Russia before out of mere boredom.

He was once asked to stop a tank with his own body.

He was also ordered to build a canal in frigid weather
without any food.

Germany:

He’s forced to annex Austria, despite voicing his
unwillingness to do so.

During WW2, Finland talks to Germany about his boss troubles.
He jokes with Germany and says that countries can be imprisoned by their boss
if they complain too much.

This joke takes a dark turn when Finland suggests that
Germany’s boss would actually be capable of doing this.

Private Life:

Now that these more drastic orders have been covered, let’s go
over some of the more trivial aspects of a nation’s life that is controlled by
their boss. Like I said before, the relationship between the two isn’t always oppressive,
but there still remains a clear hierarchy.

England:

England’s banned from alcohol and sweets by his boss, and is
threatened with higher duties and taxes should he consume either of them.

The boss enforces this ban to keep England’s health in check.
Either way, this demonstrates how pervasive and extensive their control is.

Lies + Blind-sidedness:

Sometimes, the nations are kept in the dark about things
too.

America:

After the Roswell New Mexico incident, America is told that
the UFO he saw was nothing more than a weather balloon and that he should
forget that it ever happened.

Likewise, it seems that America is a bit disconnected and naïve
about how his own political system works. The fact that he has to “surmise”
what everyone wants is troubling. The naivety comes with the fact that he
thinks he can find a satisfactory political candidate that pleases everyone.

On the other hand, to surmise means to guess, estimate, or
speculate without having any evidence to confirm the assumption. If anything,
this might mean that he’s not directly involved in gathering public opinion,
but rather that he’s adopted a passive role when elections come around.

It makes me wonder how much he’s permitted to get involved
in the process.

Resistance:

While bound by their bosses’ orders through customary
tradition, there are times when the nations go against them.

Japan:

During the formation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, Japan apologizes
to England when his boss “went on his own accord.”

Italy:

Italy maintains a boundary with his boss by asserting his right
to keep some of his life private. Admittedly, he does offer to reveal these
stories should his boss treat him to lunch.

Notice the title of this strip too. This confirms the power
differential between boss and nation.

Idolizing Relationships:

Prussia:

Lastly, there are times where the nation forms a lasting
bond with their boss.

Prussia and his relationship with Frederick II “Fritz” is
the best example of this.

Prussia idolized, or rather still idolizes, Fritz to the
point that he still keeps a picture of him on his nightside table.

You’ll also find that when he feels anxious or lonely,
Prussia evokes the memory of Fritz to comfort him. This is seen
in Buon San Valentino.

Bonus: In his character song “Mein Gott!”, Prussia also asks Fritz to watch over him.

In sum…

The nations are often forced to comply with their bosses’
orders, despite being representations of their people. None of this negates or
justifies the fact that they’ve likely been commanded to do unspeakable things.

The bosses’ orders are not always negative in nature, but
they’re still authoritative.

The nations have been shown to exercise discretion and
agency by resisting their bosses.

It’s possible for a nation to form an affectionate
relationship with their boss.

Can you analyze the relationships between the countries and their leaders? I think it would be very interesting. Would they represent their people’s view points while maybe having their own?

“Do you think that nations can go against their bosses and governments? Or do you think that they have the same beliefs as them? Can
the people influence the nation?”

What you’ll see is a complicated blend of what you two
asked.

For the most part, they’re bound by their bosses’ orders. It
does happen, but very rarely do they go against them.

Of course, it’s important to consider that the nations have minds
of their own and often disagree with the orders they’re given. Some of what
they’re told to do isn’t in their peoples’ best interest. The irony is that the
nations exist because of their people, not the government alone:

Lastly, because the nations work under their leaders’ orders,
they’re primarily reactive to their peoples’ perceptions of them.

Ex: Russia expresses
dismay during the Bloody Sunday revolt, given how hard he had worked to improve his
country for the betterment of all.

Ex: After the
Revolutionary government gains power, France is prevented from dressing
aristocratically in the fear that he’ll be assaulted.

With all that cleared out of the way, an analysis of the
nations’ bosses coming up tonight!

Canada actually talks about being with America since birth in chapter 178 of World Stars :O

[All fixed.]

Ah… I see what happened here lol.

I don’t write down things literally, and instead write the meaning behind it.

In my notes, I have certain words coded. When I looked up the strips with America and Canada, I had it listed as “grew up together after being born.” That’s why I overlooked it. I apologize for that, as Canada does actually say this!

But, this is still really important in clearing up the fact that Canada doesn’t mean “since” as in literally the moment when they were born, as the anon had interpreted it as.

By “since”, he means as in after the fact that they were born and introduced to each other as siblings. That’s the context it’s to be understood as in the strips. Still, thank you very much for pointing this out. I hope this clears things up.

Sorry, I have an obnoxious tendency to assume that people already bear similar interpretations to me, as opposed to taking things literally.

Keep in mind that the rules I’ve come up with here are not
canon. They’re simply just me compiling examples that form a consistent logic.

Overall, I’ve noticed two principle factors that causes the
nations to mature. There are other sub-principles that fall in tandem with
these categories.

1) They need a strong and autonomous economy, which
usually entails having a large population – If the nation is being taxed as a
colony, then they’re not economically autonomous.

2) They need to achieve political autonomy and
sovereignty (independence) – This includes a self-functioning and officially recognized
government.

Let’s go over a few examples.

America:

At a young age, due to an early economic boom, we know that
America gained super strength. However, because his economy and legislatures
were authoritatively controlled by England, he grew weak for some time.

Now, notice how under England’s overbearing rule America’s
economy is strained. Not only that, but he looks considerably younger.

Then, look at him after he begins fighting for his
independence; there’s a notable increase in age between these two panels.

We also see this same growth spurt in volume 3, where
America ages exponentially right before he revolutionizes.

With control over his politics and economy, America was then
able to become an adult.

Admittedly, in the “Cleaning out the Storage” strip, America
admits that he feels like he’s becoming an “old geezer.”

Lithuania responds by telling him that he’s merely “becoming
an adult.”

Put into context, I interpret this as America maturing
mentally, as opposed to physically. From the example above, we know just how
dramatically he aged.

Likewise, what you’ll see in a moment is that America was considered
to be an adult well before the 1930s (around the time when the outsourcing
strips take place).

Canada:

Canada is another good example of this autonomous economy/politics
requirement.

For one thing, he ages far slower than America, remaining as
a young child while the latter grew up at a faster rate. This is likely owed to
America’s larger economy.

That said, this proves the strong role that the total
strength of an economy overall plays
in the nations’ aging process. America and Canada were both under England’s
rule and were subjected to taxes, but because America’s economy [and
population] was larger, he matured more quickly.

The political autonomy rule is realized once Canada becomes
a Dominion (1867). While it’s not complete independence from Britain, it was
enough for Canada to physically mature from a teen to an adult.

Monarchies vs Constitutional Monarchies and Republics:

This is a more tentative example, but I’ve noticed that the
nations possibly could have aged as a result of a changed structure in their
governments.

Before constitutional monarchies or people’s republics, the
government was strictly run by the church and later monarchs, who ruled by
absolute divine right. Basically, the people had no say in their governments.

I mention this because in this strip here, we know that
Austria, France, and Russia are about 17-18 years old during the Seven Years’
war.

We know now that France is 26 and Austria is just a little
younger than Prussia, who’s 20↑

. We still don’t have a confirmed age for Russia
yet.

Nonetheless, the difference between now and then is that
democratic governments today are supposed to derive their power from their people (corruption
and tricky nuances aside, it’s the structure not the pragmatics that matters
here).

Starting in the late 18^th century, this new era
of politics and the subsequent provision of constitutional rights might have
lent to stronger senses of national identities, thus causing the nations to
adapt and age in response.

We also know from France that the nations exist and therefore get
their power from their people.

Latvia:

With the following rules above applied, this explains why
Latvia remains so fragile, small, and young despite existing for far longer
than some of the other nations who are physically
older than him.

Latvia hasn’t historically experienced consistent political
independence and autonomy, and has been subjected to foreign control for much
of his existence.

His economy is also considerably poor. He lags behind in
industrial developments and remains largely dependent on agriculture.

So, before anyone says that Hima characterizes a nation’s
age for seemingly no reason, try applying these rules. I guarantee you that you’ll
find some sort of economic or political justification.

America and Canada: Who’s older?

England: Er…whoever learned the alphabet first.

America: DAMN IT!

150 years later…

America and Canada: Who’s older?

England: Er…whoever has a lower drinking age.

Canada:

Do you think Canada or America is older? I know Canada believes he is because he learnt the alphabet first, but England’s answer seemed so forced, almost as if he didn’t know himself. Any thoughts?

“People
argue about Canada and America’s age, and who is older, but I think they’re
literally the exact same age. Neither of them is older and neither of them is
younger. Jamestown was settled in America in 1604, and Quebec (though it kept
moving around- It’s final move was in 1608) was also founded in 1604 in Canada.
It would make sense why Canada said in the manga that he and America have been
together since they were BORN, even though we see England introduce them. Any
thoughts?”

Answer: There’s no [explicit] canon answer

[Anon 2]

Like you said, they were introduced to each other in “Fly
Canada-san, Fly!”

Edit: In chapter 178 of World Stars, he does mention that they’ve been with each other since they were born. But, they weren’t with each other from birth. It was more like they were brought together afterwards.

The “since” is important here, as it’s to be taken as something that happens after the fact that they were born.

Second, it’s important to differentiate that the
foundation of a country is not their birthday, although they still celebrate it
as such. I know that’s not quite what you were getting at, but you’ll see why the same logic applies in a moment.

Lastly, I’m not aiming to be nitpicky about the history
here, but there were earlier settlements in both countries. However, as mentioned
above, the foundation date/ early foundations of a country is not their precise birth date.

For example, America was found wandering about by the
colonizing European nations. The matter of when he manifested is left open-ended.
If I had to guess, the factors causing his existence would possibly have to do
with how many people were located in the settlements and how stable they were.
They would also have to have some form of functioning governance (i.e. unwritten
localized customs).

Likewise, we know from Iceland that even when settlements
and some sort of civilization is formed, the personification doesn’t manifest
right away.

That said, I wouldn’t use their earliest foundation dates as an
accurate predictor in determining their age. Not only that, but there’s also
the difficulty in distinguishing which settlement caused them to manifest.

[Anon 1]

You’re right, England’s answer does seem forced. I think
that mostly stems from the fact that he wasn’t there at the precise moment
when both of them were born. While I did list potential factors that can be attributed
to their birth, none of it is confirmed.