Which country has had the same capital for the longest time?

This seems a bit tricky to me, author -- when does a country become a country and therefore a capital a capital? Damascus is extremely old, but Syria, as an officially-recognized, independent national entity, is not.

I'll offer Damascus, but with much uncertainty.

I'll put forward Malta. Valletta is an old, OLD city, we're talking early 12th century at least. Greece could also be a good one, but I don't think that the borders of modern day Greece have been inp lace for anywhere near as long as Malta - I mean, you can hardly change the borders on an island nation, can you?

Presumably the question means "continuously"? I suppose London (as capital of England, not Britain) would be a candidate if one disregards complications during the English Civil War.

What about Reykjavik? Iceland has been fairly untroubled by wars or borders changing, and it is one of the oldest countries there are. As a country it has remained virtually unchanged for 1,000 years at least.

Damascus has been pretty much the capital city of whatever nation or civilization happened to be around at the time. Since 1945 it was Syria. Before that it was the Syrian province of the Ottoman empire. Before that, there was another Syria, and Assyria before that.

Rome has been the capital of the Roman empire, the Roman province (or duchy or whatever powers held it) and Italy contiuously.

Yes, it is tricky, and the question was unprecise, too. I want the oldest capital that has been continuously the capital of a now-existing independent country. This excludes for example Damascus of Syria. Reykjavik of Iceland could be a guess, but Iceland gained its independence in 1918 (in union with Denmark) and became an independent republic in 1944. It also excludes Valletta of Malta (which was a British colony until 1964). If you don't mind border changes more options should be at hand. I don't know myself, what about London? Paris? Moscow? Some may think San Marino, but it hasn't been continously independent (recognized by the Papacy) longer han since 1631.

I'm sorry, Moscow is excluded, it was only the capital continously since 1918. What about Asia? It's not Tokyo, it became capital in 1868. Nor is it Beijing, which became capital in 1949. Nor Bangkok, it became capital in 1782. Nor Tehran, it became capital in 1795. Some of these were capitals earlier, but that does not count as it has to be continuously. So it's probably in Europe.

London would definitely be my candidate, it has been the capital of England since the 800s. Then there is Paris, capital since 987.

Author, it seems that London did not become the capital of England until after the Norman Conquest. Winchester, the capital of the Kingdom of Wessex from the 6th century, retained its distinction as the location of royal authority after Alfred began using the title "King of England" in the 9th century. In other words, Paris seems to have priority.

This site on London includes a link to one on Winchester:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

This site says Oslo and gives 1048 as a date:

http://www.directferries.co.uk/oslo_copenhagen_ferry.htm

while Sofia, Bulgaria, is supposed to be over 2000 as is London. I suspect it's one that's up for debate.

Sofia is an old city, but it was not the continUous capital, as Veliko Tarnovo was capital 1185-1396.
Copenhagen and Oslo might be better candidates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnovo

I still don't think Oslo is the best candidate, since both Bergen and Trondheim were capitals before. Oslo has been regarded as the capital city since the reign of Håkon V (1299-1319), who was the first king to reside permanently in the city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo

I am not convinced that Copenhagen is a good alternative, either.
According to this Danish site ot only became the king's residence in 1443.
Remember that Roskilde was an earlier capital of Denmark than Copenhagen.
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/København

Indeed, I am not trying to answer my own question, I just want to ask some questions. According to this site, London superseded Winchester as capital of England in the 12th century. Cound anyone be more precise on the date here?
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

As I remember it, London was first proclaimed a "co-capital" by William the Conqueror, who had himself crowned as King of England at both Winchester Cathedral in Winchester and Westminster Abbey in London. However, the main Domesday Book was kept in Winchester through at least 1108. It is unclear when the Domesday Book left for London, which marks the end of Winchester's co-capital status. One prominent historian from the 1900s believes that it left for London within a few years of that date. Another thinks it remained in Winchester until around 1161, when there was an order from King Henry II that moved the official location of something (most likely the book) to London.

That doesn't mean that London didn't continue to be a co-capital of England starting in 1066. It does, however, indicate that London became the sole capital no later than the 1160s, and perhaps as early as 1110.

An 1889 book on Winchester's reign as a capital, "Royal Winchester ... the Ancient Capital of England" by Alfred Guy Kingan L'Estrange, gives some of the background on royal usage of Winchester after the main scrolls of the Domesday Book were transferred -- but it's clear that Winchester no longer served as capital after that date.

Here's a loooooong link to the L'Estrange book online, in Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VroLAAAAYAAJ&dq=winchester+capital+england&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Y6wu61cFID&sig=i-rFIq5S6xAAGFd5AMiN3gPnClQ#PPP9,M1