I haven't posted anything in forever so I decided to drop some of my headcanons for the human names of various ancient nations. Just the deceased ones so ancients like India, China, and Iran will be on a different list that has living nations (if I ever get around to posting it).
Also, I want to go ahead and credit @calvogostoso for Ancient Rome and Germania's names! I actually had a pretty similar name for Rome originally, just in a different order, but their name order is much better.
I will continually update this list.
Akkad (♂): Puzur-Ilaba (𒅤𒊭𒀭𒀀𒂷)
Puzur-Ilaba: Meaning "Under the protection of Ilaba," it is a theophoric given name. Ilaba was a god of war and personal deity of Sargon of Akkad, the most powerful and influential Akkadian ruler to ever live. Akkad was quite warlike, so the persona taking this name both honors Sargon, and is a way of calling for blessing during conquest, that he and his people be "protected" by Ilaba.
Ammon (♂): Barachel (𐤁𐤓𐤊𐤀𐤋)
Barachel: A given name meaning “El has Blessed.” Theophoric names were very common, and El was most commonly used. It is believed that El might have possibly been considered by the Ammonites to be one in the same as their chief god, Milcom.
Ancient Egypt/Kemet (♀): Henuttawy (𓎛𓎺𓏏𓈃𓁐)
Henuttawy: A given name meaning “mistress of two lands” referring to the unity of upper and lower Egypt which is a wonderfully symbolic name for the personification of Ancient Egypt. It is pronounced henut-tawi.
Ancient Greece/Helles (♀): Helene (Ἑλένη)
Helene: It is a name meaning "torch" or "light." But the reason it was chosen is that it is already very similar to what her people called themselves, "Hellenes." Although, it should be noted that they claim descent from a man named Hellen, which should not be confused with Helen of Troy of which Greece's name is based on, but the name is close enough and popular enough in the fandom I decided on it. The name also easily transliterates into modern day (if anyone wants modern AU fics with Mama Greece).
Ancient Rome (♂): Romulus Martius Maximus Avitus
Romulus: His praenomen. They are equivalent to a given name. The name “Romulus” is the name of the legendary founder of Rome.
Martius: A nomen or name of a family’s clan. “Martius” means “of Mars” which references how Romulus was his son and how the Romans venerated Mars as one of their most important gods.
Maximus: A cognomen which is a name to further distinguish different families in clans. The name “Maximus” means “the greatest” which fits his ego.
Avitus: This is an agnomen which are like nicknames, usually for doing something distinguished. In this case, “Avitus” means “grandfatherly, ancestor” which he is to his people and his descendants like North and South Italy.
Reference Link (@calvogostoso)
Athens (♂): Demochares (Δημοχάρης)
Demochares: A name meaning "grace/favor of the people." It contains the Greek noun demos which is one of the root words in democracy, which Athens is the birthplace of. His name references his democratic ideals and love for his people. Demochares was also the name of an Athenian who defended Athens' democratic values during Alexander the Great's rule. This name emphasizes Athens' role as a statesman and civic leader.
Babylonia (♂): Nadin-Marduk (𒈾𒁕𒉡𒀭𒀫𒌓)
Nadīn-Marduk: A given name meaning “Gift of Marduk.” Marduk was the chief deity of Babylon. This name is a reference to the idea that Babylon itself is a gift to humanity. I imagine him as quite the proud character so this seems like a name he'd pick.
Bactria (🜬): Oaxšobordo (Οαχϸοβορδο)
Oaxšobordo: A native Bactrian name meaning "Received from the Oxus." Oxus is a river corresponding with Amu Darya in Central Asia and was the lifeblood of this ancient civilization the way the Tigris and Euphrates were for Mesopotamia. So, the name literally references humans receiving the gift of civilization from this river. Technically, this is a masculine name but there are no gender neutral names in native Bactrian for my non-binary OC and barely any female names recorded. However, non-binary people aren't limited to unisex names so I don't feel it is a deal breaker for my OC. An interesting fact about Bactria is that they spoke an Iranian language but wrote with the Greek alphabet that has an additional letter of "ϸ" which is actually used in this name. Bactrian's also tended to use compound names, so someone could call them Oaxšo or Bordo as a short name, or as a nickname.
Carthage (♂): Hasdrubal (𐤏𐤆𐤓𐤁𐤏𐤋)
Hasdrubal: A theophoric given name meaning “Baal helps.” It was tradition to name children after important deities, and Baal was very important Punic deity. A similar Punic name you might be more familiar with is "Hannibal" which means "Baal is Gracious." I decided to go with Hasdrubal as it is less famous than Hannibal.
Edom (♂): Qaws-Melek (𐤒𐤅𐤎𐤌𐤋𐤊)
Qaws-Melek: One of the few given Edomite names preserved as we really only know the names of a handful of their kings. It means “Qaws is king” which was the chief deity of the Edomite people.
Germania (♂): Aizarikijaz (ᚨᛁᛉᚨᚱᛁᚲᛁᛃᚨᛉ)
Aizarikijaz: His given name derived from “aizō” which means “fear, reverence, honor” and from “rīkijaz” which means “ruler, mighty, powerful.” Which means his full name could be understood as "honored ruler."
Reference Link (@calvogostoso)
Inca Empire (♂): Intiq Qhapaq
Intiq Qhapaq: A two part given name with Intiq meaning “of the Sun” and Qhaqap meaning “noble.” Together, his name means “Noble of the Sun.” The Inca were said to be descended from Inti, the Sun god.
Minoan Crete (♀): Ariadne
Ariadne: Names from Minoan Crete are not actually known as their script, Linear A, has not been translated yet. At best, we can guess which names used in Ancient Greece were adopted from their Minoan versions. Ariadne is one of the names that was likely adapted from the Minoans.
Moab (♂): Kamos-Dan (𐤊𐤌𐤔𐤃𐤍)
Kamos-dan: A given name meaning “Chemosh is strong” or “Chemosh has given justice” which is conveys martial might and a sense of justice. Chemosh was the cheif deity of the Moabs, and associated with war and justice. The Moabites were a warlike people so I think, if he were to choose a name, he'd choose one emphasizing his military might.
Phoenicia (♀): Amat-Melqart (𐤀𐤌𐤕𐤌𐤋𐤒𐤓𐤕)
Amat-Melqart: A theophoric given name reflecting her devotion to the patron god of Tyre, Melqart. Tyre was the main Phoenician city. Her name means “Servant of Melqart.” Such theophoric names were common in Phoenician naming practices. Also, fun fact: Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, and all their derivatives have their writing system descended from the Phoenician alphabet!
Sparta (♀): Euryleonis (Ευρυλεωνίς)
Euryleonis: It is the feminine form of the Spartan name Euryleon which means "broad lion." However, the meaning of her name is less important because it is the history of her name that is significant. She shares a name with one of the only women to ever compete in the Olympics in ancient Greece. The historical Euryleonis won a chariot racing contest. This name acknowledges Sparta's history of being relatively progressive when it came to women's rights and the history as a warrior culture.
Reference link (@peonycats)
Sumer (♀): Zal-Anki (𒉌𒀭𒆠)
Zal-Anki: A given name meaning “light of the heavens and earth.” The verb Zal means “to shine” and Anki is a noun referring to the cosmos or the Heavens and Earth (An=sky, heaven and Ki=Earth). Typically, it would be a theophoric name like “Zal-An” or “light of An” but I took a little bit of creative liberty while still remaining within the confines of Sumerian naming traditions. The name is a reference to her being the first civilization and “light” of the heavens and earth.
Anyways, I'll be adding more in the future. Currently, the names are a bit more skewed to the Middle East region as that tends to be my area of interest in history, but I'll be looking into other nations around the world to add to this list in the future.
If I have gotten any of the names wrong, please feel free to correct me politely.
Can someone who's a little more familiar with Taiwanese names help me out a little?
Every website i read tells me Taiwan uses the three-syllable naming system that's common in some other east-Asian countries. Which tells me her first name should have two syllables (since her surname is Xiao).
But ive never seen anyone call her anything besides just Mei? I'm probably going to give her the full name Xiāo Měi-líng, but i've never seen anyone point out that she should have a second syllable in her name and I'm a little confused just how necessary it is?
Taiwan's human name you are likely referencing, in Eastern order, is Lin Xiao-Mei (林曉梅):
Xiao-Mei: Her full given name is “Xiao-Mei” not just “Mei” or “Xiao.” The character Xiao means “dawn” and Mei means “plum blossom.” Dawn represents hope, and plum blossom is her national flower, a flower known for resilience. You can use "Mei" as a nickname, but it usually sounds better if you add something to it like "Ah-Mei" (little Mei) or "Mei-jie" (big sister Mei). You could also call her "Mei-Mei" although that sounds a bit childish.
Lin: Her surname means “forest” which references the natural beauty of her nation. It is also the family name of one of the Five Families of Taiwan.
The other name Himaruya proposed was "Lin Yi-Líng" (林乙玲) with "Yi" meaning "second" and "Ling" being for the word for the sound jade makes when clashed together. Taiwanese fans seem to prefer Xiao-Mei because it is far more meaningful for a Taiwan persona.
Also, I'd avoid making her surname "Wang" unless it is an AU. In Hetalia, shared surnames typically signal being part of the same political body (like North Italy and South Italy both being Vargas). Being siblings does not mean sharing surnames, hence why Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are siblings but have different surnames. By that same token, Hong Kong and Macau share China's surname "Wong" despite never being confirmed as siblings of China (they only ever refer to him as "teacher").
Basically, having a unique surname is a representation of being a sovereign nation in canon, and sharing a surname is not indictive of family relation. Thus, I'd avoid giving Taiwan the same surname as China unless it is an AU, which should be fine then.
Anybody who knows more is welcome to correct me—I'm just sharing what I know.
Also, here is a link for more information (mainly about Hong Kong, but there is information about Taiwan too): https://www.tumblr.com/vulpes-incendium/625617151644106752?source=share
If you are actually interested in exploring this idea, I suggest looking up what a "Tutelary deity" is. According to Wikipedia, they are, "a deity or a spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation."
Sounds quite like the Hetalia nations, no? Even if they aren't this, humans would certainly make the connection in a nations revealed au. Tutelary deities have been found in ancient Greece, ancient Rome (Romulus was the tutelary deity for Rome, believe it or not), India, Thailand, Vietnam, Slavic cultures, early Germanic cultures, Philippines, Korea, China, Japan, Austronesia, and Native America.
You could probably even spin it that these stories and myths were based on the nations via human's limited knowledge of them. It is an interesting thing to look into.
i've always thought that different nations and cultures would treat their hetalian incarnation differently and wanted to see what your thoughts are on their places in their governments and societies
Hey! Sorry it took so long for me to respond. College is kicking my butt right now.
Generally, I agree with your premise. Different cultures around the world have different cultural beliefs when it comes to the supernatural. Some societies may have lived alongside their nation for centuries (nations that emphasize communal importance) while, for others, the nation may have only hung out around their leaders and the elite (France, for example, probably lived mostly among the elite until the revolution, at which point he then began to hang mostly with his regular citizens).
The problem with trying to figure this out is that, reasonably, a world where Hetalia nations exist and are known by the public would be completely different from our world. But, I will attempt to answer (and save the history divergence post for another time):
America:
He is canonically a workaholic. It makes sense, considering America's work culture and his nature as a superpower. He didn't get strong by sitting on his laurels. He probably worked very closely with his leaders in the past, especially during the Cold War. However, in recent years, he has been pulling away from working directly with his leaders. I suspect he still works just as hard, just not by collaborating with them.
As for his interactions with citizenry, that is kind of hard to place? He's a real workaholic, but I feel like he'd love to hang out with his citizens too. I can easily see him being the type to read books to kids at a library, go to sports games, attend concerts, and just be genuinely kind and personable to any citizens he interacts with on the street. But I also see him as someone who may pull away from his citizens for a while because he becomes so invested in his work.
Canada:
I think he would be much more interested in hanging out with his citizens than working in his government. Idk, Canada seems like he would be sort of vibing along in life. Canada is not obsessed with becoming a world power or anything like that, he is pretty happy with his place on the world stage. Powerful enough to not have to worry about anything, but also not having to worry about people constantly watching and judging his actions on the world stage.
I feel like his presence among his people would be pretty low key. He's not like his brother where everything is a huge deal. He'd be the type to go down to the store only for the cashier to mildly remark later, "Oh, by the way, I saw Canada earlier today." He's often hanging out with his people and he never makes it a big deal.
Of course, he can totally get involved in his government when he needs to and he is good at politics. During WW2, Canada declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor before the US even did. He is quick to get involved when it comes to the protection of his brother or his people. While he likes to stay out of politics, he is 100% able to get involved and thrive when the situation calls for it.
China:
My personal headcanon is that, pre-revolution, China's position in his nation was viewed with an almost reverence. Traditional Chinese society viewed spirits and the supernatural with awe. Spirits and the supernatural were to be treated with respect, and no spirit was quite as important as the very spirit of their nation. Any human that knew it was him would have probably shown him extreme deference. However, I suspect he would have disguised himself as regular peasantry to hang out with his people when he wanted to be close to them.
As far as his involvement with his government, I believe that, in his earlier years as a nation, he was much more involved. However, with the dynastic cycle and the revolving door of governments in often bloody civil wars, he probably found himself pulling away from direct interference. Instead, he attempts to subtly manipulate things behind the scenes so, that way, he can still have influence in his government but also not be burned horribly when his governments inevitably fail.
The Communist Revolution, I suspect, would have changed China's entire dynamic with his people. One of Mao's goals in the revolution was an attempt to emphasize that all people were equal under communism (for all of Mao's faults, he did do a lot to get Chinese society to view women as equals). One of the things he probably did was attempt to demystify China as a nation-persona, and instead emphasize that China was no different than everyone else. Just an "every" man, so to speak. A fellow comrade.
By modern times, I suspect that China has trouble connecting with his people. Not because of the revolution or anything like that but, when you are 4,000 years old, have endured thousands of wars and other large-scale tragedies, it can be hard to connect personally with a human. We know that nations canonically perceive time differently from humans, which I can only imagine gets worse as one gets older. This isn't even considering the fact China has over a billion citizens. Also, again, he regularly loses hundreds of thousands to millions of people at least once a century in either a war, flood, famine, or some other disaster.
So, he has trouble connecting with humans on a personal level, but he still loves and cares for his citizens. It is just in a more distant way. Kinda of like the way you may like and care for a store owner of a shop you frequently visit. You do not know them personally, and probably don't care for them the way you would a friend or family member, but you still care for them and would probably be sad if something happened to them. That would be China's feelings for his people, most likely.
England:
He's really interesting to try and theorize for because he can be such a walking contradiction sometimes. He is a man obsessed with class, elegance, and gentlemanly behavior but is also a man who works as a pirate, dresses like a punk, and is extremely vulgar in his speech when mad (which is often).
For this reason, I do no think he would have been consistent in his involvement with his government and people. Sometimes, he would have been very involved in working with his government, even obsessively so. Like I said with America, you do not become one of the most powerful nations in the world by being lazy and stupid. And England was extremely powerful.
But I also see him as the type to hop on a ship and sail away whenever he feels frustrated with his government or dealing with what he considers drivel. I can just picture him at a party, having to dance the quadrille for hours and going, "Screw this, I can't take it anymore!" and sailing off with the excuse he has to kick France's ass again (which is an excuse that is always accepted because kicking the ass of the French is a most honored English past time).
Personally, I can't see him interacting with his people too much outside of when he needs to? He gives me the impression of a pompous lord who thinks he is above the common peasantry. He also just strikes me as a plain-old-introvert that is more comfortable interacting with people he knows than strangers, even if they are his citizens. He can do it though. Being able to navigate the politics of the royal court has made it so that he knows how to navigate just about any social interaction with a human smoothly.
His interactions with his citizens would mostly consist of those who are working on the same projects he is: the crew on his ship, other theater performers, scholars at a university, soldiers and military leaders, ect.
France:
I mentioned this at the start of this post, but I suspect that, pre-revolution, France would have spent much more time with his royalty than his citizens. It was just sort of expected. The royalty was the upper class, and the nation-personas were undoubtedly of the upper class, so why wouldn't he hang out with the people who run his nation?
When the revolution came around though, I think it was a pretty... extreme wake-up call to start paying attention to his citizenry and, considering how empathetic France seems to be in canon, I think this would have been a change he would have slipped into easily. He has a lot of love, even calling himself the "big brother" of the world, so I think prioritizing the needs of his people would come easily to him.
Now, I see him as not working directly with his government unless he feels like he needs to for proper change to take place. While other nations may mock him for his strikes and protests, he would rather be out there with his people, his lifeblood, working for change instead of inside his government, detached from them all. They can laugh, but he is proud to be out there working with his people, striving for a better future.
Germany:
He is 100% a work in his government kind of guy. He is very diligent, and he makes sure the work is up to German standards. He is not just going to leave it for someone else to do. He knows how it needs to be done and nobody can do it better than him. They will surely make a mistake in the paperwork or somewhere else along the process. He is very particular, so doing the work himself is a necessity.
Not to say he wouldn't hang out with his people. After a hard days work, it wouldn't be unusual to find him and his brother Prussia in a bar, hanging out with his citizens. He attends Oktoberfest every year. There is no force on earth that is strong enough to prevent him from going.
On a darker note, I feel like, despite working for his government, he doesn't fully trust them. After what happened with Hitler, he is always keeping a close eye on his government, unwilling to let himself make the same mistake in trusting the wrong person twice. So, it is not that his government is particularly untrustworthy, Germany is just always on alert in case things go south. If that happens, he will pull away without hesitation or even challenge his leaders (within the limit of the very limited power nations have).
Italy (North):
Good luck getting this man to work. He is more than happy letting his government work while he enjoys fine art, fine cuisine, and fine women (and fine Germans). He's always hanging out with his people because he loves them and he think they are so much more fun to hang out with than the stuffy, old, boring men in his government.
Let it be known though, back in his days as a merchant, he was an absolute beast at it. He could convince you to buy dirty rags for the price of fine silk. He could swindle just about any nation coming to his ports for stuff and they'd never even realize he did because they underestimate him as a ditzy idiot (he's not an idiot, he just choses to take life easy instead of stressing all the time, because he knows it leads to a happier life and life is too short).
Italy (South):
If you thought it was hard to get his brother to work in the government, well, you haven't met South Italy. You would have to drag him kicking and screaming to work. This isn't to say he can't work in his government. When he has decided he is going to work, he locks in. Nobody can slow him down once he gets going.
Like his brother, he'll also hang out with his people although a little less. In general, he seems to struggle in interacting with people, so he is not as likely to just outside and hang out with others. He would more likely spend his time Spain, Belgium, or other nations he is close to.
Japan:
Hmm, it is hard to get a read for him. I think he would work in his government as much as it is expected of his position. I don't feel like he'd be clawing at the chance to work, but I also feel like he wouldn't be refusing to come into work. He come in, do what is expected of him, do a good job, and never complain.
He'd also go out for drinks with his boss afterwards, as would be expected of him.
In general though, I think he is so old that he just isn't as super invested in politics as he used to be when he was younger. Also, with that clusterf*ck that was WW2, I feel like he'd be hesitant to ever get too involved with his government again.
He'd probably prefer to spend his days playing gacha, sipping tea, or visiting one of his many themed cafes. I think he has no problem walking amongst his citizenry and, like Canada, I feel like he'd be really low-key. He'd never announce his presence and, I feel like even if his citizens recognized him, they would never call him out due to respect for his privacy.
Russia:
He seems like a person that works closely with his government, but is also always trying to subtly steer his leaders away from committing crimes against humanity without having his leader flip their shit at him.
"Um, Comrade Stalin? Is it really a good idea to kill all our doctors? What if you have a stroke later and need someone to take care of you, but there is no one qualified?"
*Smack!*
Trying to imagine him among his citizenry is hard because he is just one of those people who feels like he would be so out of place in a crowd. However, Russia does canonically have a soft spot for kids. I feel like he'd love to hang out with them. Probably read them books like America does for his own citizens. Let them crawl up on his shoulders so that they can be a "giant" and say "look how tall I am, mom!"
I feel like hanging out with the kids might help remind him of why he endures the hard things he does. It is so his next generation of people can have better lives. I also feel like the world is filled with so much ugliness that hanging out with kids is just a nice break from how nasty the adult world can be. Kids aren't interested in finding ways to deceive, hurt, or kill each other. They just want a Cheburashka plush and to finally climb to the top of that tree in the park.
Anyways, those are my thoughts on the main Hetalia characters (I didn't count Prussia because he hasn't been a nation for over a century now). I hope this answers your question. If anybody has any headcanons of their own, I'd love to hear it! Also, if you want me to do another character, just ask.
Edit: Also, here is a cute Russia gif I was planning on adding but forgot before posting. I kinda want to add gifs to all my posts now so they aren't just ugly walls of text. Chose him because I talked about him last. Thank for reading!
Now, a popular theory of why nations have human names is that the nations use them when interacting with humans. My personal headcanon is the opposite: it is for each other.
One of the things I found while researching history is that nations often go through many different name changes. Just look at China. He went from Xia to Shang to Zhou to Qin to Han... ect. Imagine how hard that would be to keep track of?
India: "Hello, Qin. It is good to see you again!"
China: "Oh, I'm not Qin anymore, I'm Han."
India: "Wait, you've changed your name again?! How many civil wars are you going to have?"
This isn't even getting into the fact that different languages call countries different things. For example, the citizens of China do not call their nation "China," they call it "Zhōngguó." The name "China" is the English version of the native name Zhōngguó. As you can see, even if a nation's name remains the same, it can be totally different depending on the languages
So, I personally headcanon that human names are something nations can call each other that will always remain consistent, even through language barriers and even if the name of their nation changes.
China will always be Wang Yao (or Wong Yue), even when his nation is called Song or Zhou or Qin. If nations are talking to each other, and one doesn't know who "Zhōngguó" is, the other can just say, "I'm talking about Wang Yao. Zhōngguó is the new name he is going by now."
These human names are universal and, for the most part, don't go through nearly as dramatic of changes as their nation names when it comes to language variation. For example, for English speakers, the People's Republic is "China." To Chinese speakers, it is "Zhōngguó." Meanwhile, "Wang Yao" remains "Wang Yao" across the languages, it just varies in pronunciation between English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that nations having human names is both a simplicity thing and a matter of convenience. A singular name that will never, or barely, change no matter how much time passes is very useful for immortals whose other names are constantly changing.
Of course, besides simplicities sake, I think there could be other reasons too.
For example, I think it could also be an exercise in autonomy. They can't control what their nation is called, but they sure can pick their human name.
They do this to pick human names that they think reflect who they believe they are, or perhaps because they simply think a name sounds cool and they want to be called it. Regardless, they get a choice in this name while they get no say in their nation one. This isn't to say they hate their nation names, most love them! But there is just something different about a name you chose for yourself.
You can see with China, for example, that his human name is actually very reflective of him. The first character in his name "王/Wang" meaning "king," and the three lines in it represent heaven, earth, and people, which represents the king's rule over China. The last character "耀/Yao" means "shining" or "glory," which feels like the type of name China would call himself. He wants to let everyone know he is heaven's gift to the world, lol.
Another reason they might have human names is that it makes them feel more... human.
They have a sort of twisted existence. They exist because of humans and their continued existence is entirely tied to humans, but they also can never really be connected to humans. It is canon that, if a nation spends too long with a human, their immortality will rub off on the human and drive them insane as the human mind can't comprehend immortality. This isn't even mentioning how short human lives are compared to them. See: Davie.
So, nations live in this limbo of existing because of their connection to humans but also never being able to truly connect with the very humans that make up their existence. Because of this, their use of a human name makes them feel artificially closer to humans, even when they know they aren't.
Now, do I think they would use human names all the time? Do I think it would be rare? How much would they use their human names compared to their nation ones?
This sounds like a cop-out, but I think it totally depends.
I believe it would totally depend on the culture and also the relationship between the two nations. In general though, I think that the closer nations are together, the more likely they are to use human names. Or, if the nation doesn't stress over the use of names as a sign of respect and are quite laid back, they might also be fine with anyone using their human name.
Also, culture plays a part. Americans, for example, are much more laid back about names than compared to East Asia. Ergo, I think America would be totally cool with people using his human name. Heck, he might even insist as proof he and that person are "buddies."
On the other hand, some nations might absolutely expect to be referred to as their nation name only. Yeah, they have a human name, but that is reserved only for the people most precious to them. If they are a conqueror, then they expect the conquered to refer to them with a nation name. They are a nation, dammit! Not some measly human, so don't use the measly human name. Use their great nation name, instead! They didn't become the greatest empire in history to not be referred to with the name of this great nation!
I know I have been using China as an example of why it is good to have human names, but I personally headcanon he was actually a pretty big stickler of making others refer to him as his nation name only, especially his vassal states. Yeah, knowing what to call him got confusing, so what? He is worth the effort.
(Though, I do think he relaxed on it as he got older, especially after the communist revolution.)
On the other hand, nations he saw as equals and/or was close to, he would allow them to use his human name. Like Ancient Rome, Russia, and India, for example.
One last thing I want to add is that I think the biggest reason nations all have human names is just plain, ol' peer pressure.
It sounds a bit silly but, I think when a bunch of nations started using human names, other nations saw this and thought, "Crap, everyone is getting a human name! Do I need one too? Will I fall behind if I don't adapt to this new trend?!"
Eventually, it got to the point where all nations had human names and all the nations that came after them just saw the universal usage of human names and assumed that they had to pick one, that it was just part of being a nation. Now, by modern times, very few nations even know there was a point where human names weren't universal. Having human names even got to the point where nations were bestowing these names on younger nations the way a human parent would name their child (like my headcanon of England giving America his name "Alfred" after Alfred the Great).
Honestly, this is a really long headcanon for something that probably isn't anything more than an easter egg in canon. But, tldr: human names make it easier for nations to speak with each other when their nation names are always changing.
Anyways, here's a fabulous China gif since I talked about him so much. Thanks for reading!
Now that I'm thinking about it, I had always imagined that Poland kind of died and came back to life because of the partitions because that's how I saw it through what I interacted with in the fandom.
But it doesn't make much sense, there was no longer a Polish state but there was a Polish identity during the 19th century. So Poland did not die and resurrect, but maybe he was weakened ?
Then that begs the question of where he would've been. With Prussia ? With Russia ? Austria ? Or did he go in exile somewhere else ?
Your post put a lot of things I had been thinking about into words and it got me thinking sorry <3
No need to apologize! I love interacting with other fans and hearing their own thoughts on this.
I thought I read somewhere that it was actually canon that Poland "disappeared" during those 123 years. Though, looking at how other nations function when annexed by others, this doesn't make much sense.
Because yeah, Polish people and their identity were very much still around during the partition, and they fought like hell to try and get their independence back. Also, I'm not the biggest expert on the subject, but I believe there were a few smaller Polish states with more autonomy at the time.
As for who he would have lived with, I read a headcanon by a Polish person that Poland would have spent the majority of his time at Russia's house since Russia partitioned the most of the land, but also would have stayed at Prussia and Austria's houses depending on if there was something historical relevant happening between them at the time.
Of course, I suppose Poland could have actually disappeared for a bit. There's certainly a very nice phoenix imagery that could go with it, but I personally think he was still alive, weak, and spent most of his time at Russia's house. No other nation disappeared when their lands were conquered/occupied/annexed, so I am not sure why he would be.
Nation age vs. country state age is such an interesting concept to me because it makes America one of the youngest nations but one of the oldest states of today.
You're exactly right! This is yet another reason why I would hesitate to use "state" as the sole arbiter of when a Hetalia nation persona is born and dies.
I'm actually currently working on a big project where I break down my theories about all the Hetalia characters' ages. It's been slow work. There's a lot of characters and, as I research more, I find that trying to pin down what the start of a "nation" is could vary widely from nation to nation.
Like, I was just working on Ireland when I got this ask, and I have found out that a lot of knowledge about the origins of the nation that people have taken for granted (including myself) is not actually true at all. There is also disagreements among academics about when Celtic influence began in Ireland. Despite Google saying 500 BC, academics actually debate whether it was in the late Bronze period or sometime in the Iron age, which could be a difference between 900 BC to 300 BC.
A lot of nations have caused similar problems.
Overall, nation lore is complicated and this project is a nightmare (but I would do it anyways even if I didn't plan on posting it because I am a perfectionist like that).
I don't think Hetalians are supposed to be strictly nations. More like a mix of nation, country, state and culture. For example as a nation, Russia isn't very big but it has a very large territory. So they represent a combo of things.
I won't disagree. I would never argue that state borders, country, and culture have no influence on Hetalia nations. For example, I am pretty sure Russia from Hetalia is big because his state borders are big (largest in the world, actually). Nothing in his culture would lead to him being such a large character, so it would have to be influenced by his territory, not culture.
It is also canon that Iceland has a mixture of a hot and cold personality due to the snow and volcanos, which seems to imply even something like geography can influence a nation's personality.
I guess my problem is that some people seem to think that state borders are the only thing that makes a Hetalia nation who they are which seems to delegitimize nations that do not have official states either due to them being nomadic or having their land stolen from them and never having any territory given back.
There's also the fact that many current state borders in various countries are very recent. I mentioned China in my previous post and I think he is a good example. He is 4,000 years old, yet the PRC is very modern (1949 AD). If you look at this timelapse of China, you'd see that "China" is a pretty recent concept and, throughout the region's history, there have been hundreds of dynasties, sometimes foreign ruled. If state borders alone decided a nation, he would not be 4,000 years old, but would be 74.
So, I do think Hetalia nations can be and are influenced by state, country, and culture, along with many other things, but I think that the only one that ultimately ensures their survival is national identity. It just so happens that the majority of nations tie their national identity to their state so, when that is lost, they disappear too as they can't cling onto the national identity as easily without a land to identify with.
This is not universal, however, as I believe there are cultural groups in the world that are distinct enough religiously, ethnically, culturally, and/or linguistically to have their own persona, even if they don't have state borders.
I guess what I'm saying is that, if you wish to argue that state plays an important role in the influence of Hetalia nation personas, I would agree 100%. However, if you wish to argue that a nation persona who loses their territory would outright die even if their people didn't and still held onto the distinct linguistic, religious, ethnic, and/or culture identity tied to the nation persona, then I'd disagree.
But, overall, yes. I think Hetalia characters do not always solely represent nations, and that other things influence them. Unfortunately, the topic of nations can be a very complicated both historically and in Hetalia as even canon can play fast and lose with the idea (read: Prussia). And sometimes in canon, what kills one character will have another survive for no discernable reason (for example, why is there a split between Ancient Egypt and Modern Egypt but no split between Ancient China and Modern China?).
So, I guess it is all ultimately up to interpretation. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I hope I explained myself well.
Tw: Discussions about death and cultural destruction
In a previous post, I discussed both canon and headcanon ideas about how immortality works. Yet, how does a nation die? It certainly seems like they can endure a lot. Well, this post shall discuss what can and what cannot kill a nation.
Before we get any further though, I will need to discuss something very important if we are to understand this topic: nation vs state.
Nations and states are actually not synonyms of each other, despite many using them as such. In fact, the distinction is important enough for this discussion that I have decided to make sure we are all on the same page when it comes to the differences between them.
Instead of being long-winded though, I have actually put a very useful graph under the cut that will quickly compare the differences between the two:
(Third row from the bottom is wrong. I believe it is supposed to be "Not as stable as a nation" and "More stable than a state.")
In canon, the characters are exclusively referred to as nations, not states. While these things can often coincide, they are not synonyms. I'd also argue that Hima does not use it as a synonym. The characters have been pretty consistently made to represent the nations, or the religious/cultural/ethnic parts of their respective groups (ex: France is not simply the modern borders of the nation-state in today's Europe, he represents the French people and their culture).
Nations have also been shown to almost universally exist before their state does. As an example, America was born before the official establishment of the United States of America (1776 or 1783). If America were simply a state and not a nation, this would not be the case.
This distinction here will actually be very important in understanding what can or cannot kill a nation going forward, so that is why I felt the need to make this distinction clear.
So, using both canon and history, this is what I came up with:
Nations very rarely, if ever, die from occupation. Just about every nation has been occupied at some point. Just as an example, the original strips took place during WW2 when Germany occupied the majority of Europe, yet all those European nations continued to exist. Russia occupied the Baltics as the Soviet Union yet they continued to exist. Vietnam was colonized by France until 1954, yet we wouldn't say she was only born in 1954. A more ancient example is Ancient Rome.
We see that, when an empire conquered territories, those nations remained. When the Roman Empire occupied land in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and various nations in Europe, all these nations still remained. At its height, the Roman Empire covered the majority of Europe, the Anatolian Peninsula, the Levant, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. Yet, I am positive all those nations in these areas continued to live but only as part of "his house," so to speak. In canon, characters who are occupied by foreign nations refer to it as living in the other nation's house (ex: the Baltics said they lived in "Russia's House" when they were part of the Soviet Union). Already, we can see why the distinction between state and nation is important. If they were states, they would not survive the occupation.
Territory changes rarely ever kill a nation. Nations in canon are constantly gaining and losing territory. This does not kill them. Even civil wars, despite popular headcanon belief, don't seem to kill nations. As an example, China is canonically over 4,000 years old. Yet, he has had his territory divided by civil war hundreds of times over his history. In fact, it was such a prevalent thing, it even got its own term coined to describe it: the dynastic cycle. While this graph doesn't show it, you should keep in mind that each time it gets to the part where people revolt, the dynasty would often split into several different states. Here is a map of what this region looked like in 1936, right before WW2.
Loss of state or lack of state borders does not necessarily kill a nation. There is nothing in canon to indicate one way or the other, but I choose to believe that nations can exist even if they don't have official territory to call their own. To act like state borders are the only thing that determines a nation seems to deny the legitimacy of nations that were always nomadic or were forced into a nomadic life due to conquerors ousting them from their homeland. Native Americans groups were sometimes nomadic or were forced out of their home territory by the US government, yet I would not feel comfortable saying that means they weren't ever real nations (in the case of them always being nomadic) or that they ceased to exist as a nation of people (in the case of being forced from their homeland).
There are/have been a lot of diasporas of people in the world who were either ousted from their homelands or always nomadic including the Native Americans, the Sami, the Romani, the Jews, the Ainu, the Aboriginal Australians, and more. All of these groups would have or still have either one or multiple personas for their groups, regardless of the fact that they didn't have a state to call their own for a long period of their history.
Some of these groups have since been able to get state borders of their own (ex: the Cherokee Nation has a reservation covering multiple parts of Oklahoma). This is not the case for all these groups. This is because some of these groups either have no interest in a state of their own (the various Romani groups) or are interested, but have been denied (the Ainu). Also, the amount of personas they would have varies because not all of these terms refer to a single distinct group. For example, there would most likely be a single persona for the Ainu, but multiple for "Native America" as this term refers to over five hundred different nations native to North America that are around today, and each would most likely have their own persona.
So, with all of that being said, what can kill a nation? Simply put:
The destruction of a distinct national identity of a nation of people. This might seem self explanatory but it requires a bit more explanation. Basically, a nation can exist as long as their people do. "Existing" in this case refers to both physically existing and to culturally existing. So, for a nation to die, they either need to experience the complete destruction of their culture, or the complete death of all their people, or a combination of these two.
Let's use a nation that canonically died: Ancient Rome. While I said that states don't need to exist to keep nations alive, they can often be intertwined with the national identity of a people so, in a case where nation-states are the same like Grandpa Rome, the destruction of the state can lead to the death of a persona. The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about the collapse of the Roman identity (in the West, at least) and now, today, you will not meet someone who identifies with the language, religion, and culture of Rome. Nobody identifies as a Roman, at least none who were part of the original ancient culture that Grandpa Rome would have represented. Basically, his culture was effectively wiped out, so he died.
While a lack of state borders in itself won't kill, it can compound the problems that do kill a nation. If death is caused by the loss of a distinct cultural identity unique to that nation group of people, then states can often be very useful in maintaining these cultures. State borders are often founded around distinct nation groups or the formation of states can cause unique nation groups to rise up. So, while nations can exist without state borders, there is also no denying how important they can be with the formation and/or maintaining of national identities. So, while losing state borders in itself won't kill a Hetalia nation, it might lead to circumstances that can kill them aka the death of their culture.
With all that being said, national identity can be a bit fluid. The culture of China during the Shang dynasty is not the same as the culture found in the People's Republic of China today, yet both are represented by the same persona. I think changes in cultures will not kill a nation as long as you can trace their culture's path pretty linearly and it progresses naturally. One really absurd example of this is Prussia. First he was the Teutonic Knights, then Prussia, and then West Germany. Those are some pretty big leaps (and honestly, I think they don't even make sense and only happened to keep him alive because he is a popular character).
All of this is to say that what ultimately kills a nation is the loss of their people and culture that represents their nation, the culture being the biggest factor.
A nation can die if their people completely assimilate with another culture, destroying their own distinctive national identity they represent. A nation can die if the people comprising their nation all perish, leaving no one left alive that was part of that distinct culture. A nation can die if their people go through a sudden and extreme enough change of cultural identity that they are basically a new group. A nation can die if they lose their state borders and, either gradually or suddenly, the people of the nation associated with that state loses their national identity.
A nation does not die from civil war as long as one or multiple of the states involved still represent the culture of the nation persona. A nation does not die from the loss of land, change of territory, or even complete loss of all land as long as a group exists that still holds onto the national identity associated with their nation persona. A nation does not die from occupation as long as the group occupied keeps a distinct sense of nationally identity associated with the nation persona.
Well, that's all. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk! I'd love to hear your thoughts. Also, if I got any history wrong, feel free to correct me. I did my best to research, but mistakes sometimes still happen.
There's been a lot of interpretations of the nations' immortality over the years. Some people believe that nations will permanently die from a regular mortal wound like any human would while others believe nations cannot be harmed at all.
Canon seems to indicate that the latter is more of the case, with the Hetalia Horror Show stating that Finland was unable to drown when he fell into a freezing lake, but was instead suffocating endlessly, unable to die (which is pretty horrific, if you ask me).
I personally have my own headcanons as to how their immortality works. Some of it aligns with canon, and some of it deviates a little. I figure its fine since everyone kinda picks and chooses which parts of canon they like.
So, here are my headcanons (tw: violence, death, disease):
Nations cannot die the way humans do. At least, not permanently. Honestly, the idea is kind of absurd. It is impossible for them to have survived as long as they have if this was the case. China alone is over 4,000 years old and has fought in tens of thousands of battles, yet I am to believe he has not once sustained a mortal wound? What happens to the PRC if its nation persona dies from being hit by a car while being distracted by playing a mobile game on his phone? In my interpretation, nations cannot permanently die from fatal wounds, diseases, old age, and whatever other stuff that kills regular humans.
Nations can temporarily die. While they can't permanently die from mortal wounds, they can temporarily. For example, if they are shot in the head, it will kill them. However, they will heal and revive.
Nations have supernatural healing. This actually seems to be canon, based on the comic of Prussia lying about when he injured his hand, saying it was recent instead of the real answer which was a week ago, implying that healing tends to be faster for nations. In my headcanon, the nation's ability to heal depends on how strong their nation is economically, militarily, and through their overall cultural influence on the world. Currently, America and China heal the most rapidly, both being superpowers, being able to regenerate entire lost limbs in mere moments. On the other hand, Iceland has a very small GDP, no military, and very little cultural impact on the world, so he would take at least 20 seconds to heal a simple stab wound. Naturally, this healing fluctuates with the nation's power. When America was a colony, it would have taken him several minutes if he wanted to regenerate a limb. Better to just reattach the limb and heal it that way.
If the body cannot heal, a new one will be created. For example, let's say a nation fell into the ocean and is drowning. They keep dying and reviving in an endless cycle. Eventually, either through their own choice, or the supernatural natural nature of their existence, that body will permanently die and a new body will be reborn on their nation's soil. This process takes at least 24 hours and depends on how strong a nation is. America and China could probably revive 24 hours on the dot. Meanwhile, Monaco could take several days. Nations do all they can to avoid this type of death because it is, at best, highly inconvenient and it can, at worst, single handedly screw things over for them majorly. Imagine being a nation at war and having your body blown up by a bomb. By the time you revive and then travel back to the battlefield, it may already be over. This was especially awful when travel was not fast and it would take months to get somewhere.
Nations do not scar the way humans do. A nation's healing, no matter how weak they are, is perfect. It may take a while, but their bodies will go back to the way they were, meaning no scars. For a nation to receive scars, it would be based on injuries received during significant national events, especially if they are violent. For example, the French Revolution was very significant in French history so, when France was beheaded, he had a permanent, faint scar around his neck even after he healed. When the Romanovs were shot dead, ending Imperial Russia's rule, one of the bullets that bounced off the jewels they were wearing hit Russia and left a permanent bullet wound scar. Basically, a nation can end up with a permanent scar by receiving the wound during a significant, usually violent, event in their history.
Nations do not get sick the way humans do. Nations are immune to getting illnesses the way humans do. If they are around people with colds, they'll never catch a cold. They also never get terminal illnesses like cancer. There's only two things that can get a country sick: poor economy and epidemics. Honestly, this seems to be canon. Basically, if a nation's economy is doing poorly, like during the Great Depression, they will get cold/flu-like symptoms. The other way they get sick is through epidemics. Essentially, if enough people in their nation are sick, their own bodies will reflect this illness. However, since they didn't catch the illness naturally and got it though their nature as a nation, they can only stop being sick when the epidemic is over. When a nation is sick, they cannot be cured through ordinary means, they can only use medicine to alleviate the symptoms. During the Black Death, the European nations all had the bubonic plague to varying degrees for years. In fact, the bubonic plague made various resurgences over centuries. Many of them have scars from when the pustules burst and just about every one of them was extremely traumatized by it.
Nations can be effected by other types of "epidemics." For example, during the Red Scare when everyone in America was living in fear of their neighbors being communists, America became very paranoid. During the Opium Wars in China, his body began to crave opium like an addict before he even touched the stuff because nearly all his citizens were addicted, causing him to be addicted before even using. India went through at least three major famines killing over 10 million people each time from 1769-1793, so he was always underweight and hungry even if he ate during this time period.
Nations are resistant to poisons and chemicals. It takes far more poison to kill a nation than a human, although you can do it if you use a strong enough poison. I read a headcanon once that China would calmly drink a poisoned drink in front of the person who did it, just to freak them out. He 100% would do this, no debate.
Nations are vulnerable to radiation. One of the few things they are vulnerable to. While they can endure it better than humans, it is still not good. Radiation works by killing cells, via preventing them from dividing. This disrupts their ability to regenerate, so they heal slower with it.
Nations age based on economic and cultural development. This one is kinda canon. Regular humans age by the year. Nations seem to age based on the development of their country. For example, America's economy grew far faster than Canada's, and there is even a strip showing a nearly adult America next to a baby Canada despite both being born around the same time. On the opposite side of the spectrum, we see that North Italy did not age from infancy for over a 1,000 years. He was alive to have known Ancient Rome, which means he would have been born, at latest 476 AD. He did not begin to age until the Renaissance in the 1500s. As an aside, could you imagine being a baby/toddler for 1,000 years? That's honestly sounds horrific. And, based on England's shocked reaction to America's growth, it seems spending several hundred years as a baby is the norm.
So, with all of this being said, how do nations die? Well, that will be my next post. This one is already long enough so I am going to continue in another post. I hope you enjoyed my first major headcanon post! Let me know your own thoughts in the comments below.
I think it would depend on his proximity to the storm and how catastrophic the tornado is. He'll barely feel it if it's an EF1, but if it's an EF5 he can't even walk.
From my understanding, proximity does not matter when nations are affected by catastrophe in their countries. For example, nations get sick when their economy is poor and they stay sick even if they aren't in their nation.
So, I don't think proximity would matter, but I would definitely agree that the strength of the tornado would matter.
However, it should be noted that not only does the USA get the most tornados by far, they are also prone to tornado outbreaks which are defined by multiple tornados, at minimum 6-10, breaking out in the same area.
On top of that, the USA is the only nation to have experienced super outbreaks. On April 25-28, 2011, the USA and parts of Canada experienced the worst tornado outbreak ever recorded in history. There were no less than 362 tornadoes with four of them being EF5 and eleven EF4. Those are more tornados in three days than the entirety of Europe experiences in a year!
It's canon that nations get physically affected by naturally disasters. For example, this is a comic of Japan collapsing in pain due to the 1923 Kanto Earthquake. So, I can only imagine how sick America would be when an outbreak like this happens.
Now, onto my headcanons:
It actually takes more than a single tornado, even an EF5, to make America dizzy in any serious capacity. Assuming America was born during the colonization of Jamestown in 1607 AD, he'd be about 417 today (2024 AD). If he experienced around 1,200 tornados a year, that would mean he has experienced 500,400 in his lifetime! Of course, this number is not perfect as many of the tornados happen in Tornado Alley which was not always a part of America. Even still, I think this would point to him actually being pretty resilient in weathering tornados (pun intended).
On a somewhat related note, I believe similar building up of "tolerance" can happen with other nations. For example, I imagine earthquake prone nations like Japan can actually weather earthquakes pretty well unless they are a particularly powerful or devastating one.
Back to America, while I think it might take a lot to knock him flat on his ass, it 100% happens. Like if there is a tornado outbreak or even just a very busy day for tornados, he will probably be incapacitated.
I've read that some people in the Midwest that live in or around Tornado Alley will sometimes sit on their back porch with a beer and watch smaller tornados, like EF0s and EF1s, touch down for fun. America has totally done this at least once. Canada has also joined him on at least one occasion.
Onto Canada: While he doesn't have near the number of tornados America does, he still has way more than any other country in the world. So that, on top of having America for a neighbor, has made tornados pretty normalized to him too.
I have a funny idea that neither America nor Canada realized how abnormal their tornado rate were because that's how it has always been for them and they assumed everyone else experienced tornados at a similar rate. It's not until a tornado is touching down near the meeting room they are at in Oklahoma one time and the other nations are freaking out that they realize that their tornado rate is very much Not Normal™️.
On a darker note, I headcanon that England gets pretty freaked out whenever he hears the US tornado sirens. They sound just like the air raid sirens that would go off before one of the Blitz campaigns and it kicks him into fight or flight. In fact, I believe I read that tornado sirens are just repurposed air raid sirens.
On another dark note, I imagine Prussia is actually terrified of the tornados in America. This is because he is not a nation anymore and actually has a very real possibility of dying, unlike the other nations who are immortal. He struggles in silence because he hides the fact that he is losing (or already lost) his immortality, so he can't tell the others why he is scared.
Back to lighter headcanons, I imagine America has tried to encourage some of the other nations to go tornado watching with him at least once. They are immortals, after all. Even if they died, they would simply revive later. Most are not interested (dying is still painful, after all, even if you revive). China is game, though. He is over 4,000 years old, so he is past the point of being scared of dying in a tornado, especially since he'll simply revive. While China has about a 100 tornados a year, I feel like tornado watching would be pretty novel to him and, considering his age, he'd seek out novelty. They would sit on the back porch of one of America's houses, and America would offer China some beer. China would refuse the "nasty" American beer and would simply smoke some Chunghwa cigarettes instead. I think they'd still enjoy themselves, though.
With all that being said, I should put a disclaimer that I do not encourage readers to go tornado watching. If there is a tornado in your area, please seek shelter. It's fun to imagine immortal beings in this scenario but you are very much not immortal, so be careful out there.
also want to add: California is known for its earthquakes. We don't panic unless it last more then a minute and things are breaking.
America probably has some earthquake tolerance on top of dizzy spelle. Probably whatever you get from constant fires too becauae the West (it's California it's always California) also can't stop lighting itself on fire.
man is literally out here fighting cheonic conditions.
(on a seperate note can someone check on iceland last i heard his volcanos keep exploding and that can't be good for your health)
I had also considered bringing up the earthquakes but had decided to stick to the facts about tornados. Now that we are on it though, we might as well discuss the extreme weather and natural disasters in America.
On the topic of Earthquakes, the second most powerful Earthquake ever recorded was the 1964 Alaska earthquake, which had a magnitude of about 9.2-9.3. Apparently, the Earthquake was so powerful, it caused tsunamis as far as Hawaii and Japan.
Since you brought up volcanos, America actually has a lot of them, which many even in the country seem unaware of. Indeed, America has the third most active volcanoes in the world and is honestly nearly tied with Japan for second place. Looking at this graph, America has had 42 volcanoes active since 1950, Japan has had 44, and Indonesia has had 59. Comparatively, Iceland only has about 10 that have been active since 1950. The US's volcanoes tend to be found along the West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii.
If we go by Holocene volcanoes which are any volcanoes that have erupted in the last 12,000 years, then America is first with 165. I wouldn't really consider this when discussing Hetalia America or any of the other nations though, because none of them are old enough for the Holocene measurement to be relevant.
Moving on from volcanoes, the highest temperature ever recorded was in Death Valley, California at 56.7 °C (134.0 °F). America also has the fifth coldest temperature ever recorded Prospect Creek, Alaska at −62.2 °C (−80 °F). This temp is only beat by Antarctica, Greenland, Russia, and Canada. In case you mistakenly believe that Alaska is the only truly cold place in the US, the seventh coldest temperature ever recorded was on US mainland in Rogers Pass, Montana at −56.7 °C (−70 °F).
America is also prone to hurricanes, blizzards, flooding, fire tornadoes, dust storms, and severe thunderstorms.
The one nice thing I will say about America's weather/natural disasters is that, when you take into account how extreme conditions are in the USA, there actually isn't that big of a death toll when it comes to natural disasters.
America's deadliest volcanic eruption, for example, was Mount St. Helens which killed about 57 people. In comparison, the deadliest volcanic eruption ever was in Indonesia with a death toll of upwards to 121,000.
The 1964 Alaskan Earthquake, despite being the second most powerful ever recorded in history, "only" killed about a 131 people. In comparison, the deadliest earthquake was the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, which killed at least 300,000 people with some estimates going up to 700,000.
So, as far as how that affects Alfred F. Jones, I think all the (more severe) natural disasters would have physical effects on him, but that he wouldn't be effected by a severe death toll like other nations (for example: China, India, Indonesia, ect).
Honestly, this post has makes me want to create some headcanons about how natural disasters/weather physically affect nations now. I'm going to have to start working on it.
italy brothers were around by the 900s and had been around for some time. Google says rome fell in 476 and italy bros knew him so either rome lived paat his expiration date or....well. The HRE was a thing from the 900s also btw. (I forgot if it was mentioned when Rome finally kicked the bucket but i think it was while fighting Germanis...)
the viking trio were definitely sentiment at this point and bullying emgland.
italy is probabpy older then most of your favorite characters including but not limited to the nordics, America beothers, England (possibly), prussia (orobably), the Baltics....beo is OLD. He was a child for like a thousand years.....
he's definitely younger then France, Spain, and Austria, unless he just never grew because he was technically on statehood of sorts or something. Anyways its hetalia anything goes but like.
seriously no wonder italys so ditzy he's been around so long he's probably just a silly old man here for the giggles at this point. Speaking of which, damn America be the gen Z kid with the boomer employees-
Crazier is that Germany is canonically born after the fall of HRE and the formation of the German Empire, which means that Germany would have been born in 1871. That would make him over 200 years younger than even America! No wonder Germany has such poor emotional regulation in canon, he is practically a baby in nation ages and did nothing but fight in wars the first hundred years of his life.
Also, Austria is actually younger than North Italy. He was actually given a canon birthdate which was 976 AD.
I've actually been working on a list that will give my best estimates for when characters were born and how old they are. It is really interesting because you find certain characters were younger than you thought (like Germany) and some older than you thought (like the Italy brothers).
It can be surprisingly hard for some nations because their history is so varied and trying to tie a single event as their origin point can be difficult. Sometimes canon is also really vague about nation ages too so you are left shooting in the dark. It also doesn't help when, sometimes, canon just outright contradicts real history.
For example, canon says that Northern Ireland is older than England but that is simply not possible. Even if you try to go as far back as possible, you could really only date Northern Ireland to the Ulster Plantation in 1609 AD. Canon also goes on about how old Turkey is but, to my surprise, I found that Turkish people didn't even step foot into the Anatolian Peninsula until 500s-600s AD, which would make him younger than North Italy. Also, despite canon describing Turkey as "old," canon also says he was the Ottoman Empire in his "younger days." The Ottoman Empire wasn't even formed until 1299. This would actually make him among the youngest nations and directly contradicts canon treating him like he is older than North Italy. We know Italy has been confirmed to have been alive to have known Ancient Rome (476 AD) and to have lived with Austria (900s), so both of those dates make him older than Turkey.
So, yeah. I'm actually really interested in the idea of how old nations are and find it funny that many people don't seem to realize just how old North Italy is compared to a lot of the other nations. Hopefully I finish my list of headcanons detailing their ages soon because I am excited to show what I have come up with.
I think it would depend on his proximity to the storm and how catastrophic the tornado is. He'll barely feel it if it's an EF1, but if it's an EF5 he can't even walk.
From my understanding, proximity does not matter when nations are affected by catastrophe in their countries. For example, nations get sick when their economy is poor and they stay sick even if they aren't in their nation.
So, I don't think proximity would matter, but I would definitely agree that the strength of the tornado would matter.
However, it should be noted that not only does the USA get the most tornados by far, they are also prone to tornado outbreaks which are defined by multiple tornados, at minimum 6-10, breaking out in the same area.
On top of that, the USA is the only nation to have experienced super outbreaks. On April 25-28, 2011, the USA and parts of Canada experienced the worst tornado outbreak ever recorded in history. There were no less than 362 tornadoes with four of them being EF5 and eleven EF4. Those are more tornados in three days than the entirety of Europe experiences in a year!
It's canon that nations get physically affected by naturally disasters. For example, this is a comic of Japan collapsing in pain due to the 1923 Kanto Earthquake. So, I can only imagine how sick America would be when an outbreak like this happens.
Now, onto my headcanons:
It actually takes more than a single tornado, even an EF5, to make America dizzy in any serious capacity. Assuming America was born during the colonization of Jamestown in 1607 AD, he'd be about 417 today (2024 AD). If he experienced around 1,200 tornados a year, that would mean he has experienced 500,400 in his lifetime! Of course, this number is not perfect as many of the tornados happen in Tornado Alley which was not always a part of America. Even still, I think this would point to him actually being pretty resilient in weathering tornados (pun intended).
On a somewhat related note, I believe similar building up of "tolerance" can happen with other nations. For example, I imagine earthquake prone nations like Japan can actually weather earthquakes pretty well unless they are a particularly powerful or devastating one.
Back to America, while I think it might take a lot to knock him flat on his ass, it 100% happens. Like if there is a tornado outbreak or even just a very busy day for tornados, he will probably be incapacitated.
I've read that some people in the Midwest that live in or around Tornado Alley will sometimes sit on their back porch with a beer and watch smaller tornados, like EF0s and EF1s, touch down for fun. America has totally done this at least once. Canada has also joined him on at least one occasion.
Onto Canada: While he doesn't have near the number of tornados America does, he still has way more than any other country in the world. So that, on top of having America for a neighbor, has made tornados pretty normalized to him too.
I have a funny idea that neither America nor Canada realized how abnormal their tornado rate were because that's how it has always been for them and they assumed everyone else experienced tornados at a similar rate. It's not until a tornado is touching down near the meeting room they are at in Oklahoma one time and the other nations are freaking out that they realize that their tornado rate is very much Not Normal™️.
On a darker note, I headcanon that England gets pretty freaked out whenever he hears the US tornado sirens. They sound just like the air raid sirens that would go off before one of the Blitz campaigns and it kicks him into fight or flight. In fact, I believe I read that tornado sirens are just repurposed air raid sirens.
On another dark note, I imagine Prussia is actually terrified of the tornados in America. This is because he is not a nation anymore and actually has a very real possibility of dying, unlike the other nations who are immortal. He struggles in silence because he hides the fact that he is losing (or already lost) his immortality, so he can't tell the others why he is scared.
Back to lighter headcanons, I imagine America has tried to encourage some of the other nations to go tornado watching with him at least once. They are immortals, after all. Even if they died, they would simply revive later. Most are not interested (dying is still painful, after all, even if you revive). China is game, though. He is over 4,000 years old, so he is past the point of being scared of dying in a tornado, especially since he'll simply revive. While China has about a 100 tornados a year, I feel like tornado watching would be pretty novel to him and, considering his age, he'd seek out novelty. They would sit on the back porch of one of America's houses, and America would offer China some beer. China would refuse the "nasty" American beer and would simply smoke some Chunghwa cigarettes instead. I think they'd still enjoy themselves, though.
With all that being said, I should put a disclaimer that I do not encourage readers to go tornado watching. If there is a tornado in your area, please seek shelter. It's fun to imagine immortal beings in this scenario but you are very much not immortal, so be careful out there.
After months of hyperfixation since the Hetalia fandom dragged me back in, I have decided to make a side blog dedicated to all my Hetalia thoughts, theories, and headcanons.
Already, I have been working on some pretty big headcanons, so I hope to have them done soon and posted to this blog.
Also, if you notice my icon changing a lot, it is because I have decided to try and change the icon each time a nation's independence day comes up. Yeah, we'll see how long I can keep that up. 💀
Welcome everyone to my side-blog! I hope you enjoy!
