Age of Empires

[Cyclops]

It's worth remembering that the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed because of the First capture of the City by the Crusaders in 1204.

Its worth remembering the East Romans threw away military supremacy established by Basil II in favour of a corrupt bigoted court marked by an unworthy disdain for people outside their narrow close minded imaginary world. The short sightedness of the Komnenoi in granting Venice trade supremacy in the East Roman sowed the seeds for that debacle: the Latin Empire was a self-inflicted wound, as was the rise of the house of Osman.

The Ottomans just struck the death blow in an Empire that had lived for 1000 years (the longest known lifespan of any political entity), and even that, with HUGE difficulty.

That was a Roman Empire old chap, not an Hellenic one although Hellenic culture came to dominate (to the the detriment of the Empire's health) at the latter stages. The Ottomans did not just strike the death blow, they then went on to expand the old Roman state (which they explicitly claimed inheritance of) to an extent not seen since the time of Justinian.

The siege of Konstantinople was not conducted with huge difficulty, it was a forgone conclusion: the Rhomaioi had systematically thrown away every advantage, alienated almost every ally and pissed away the patrimony left them by more vigorous and tolerant ancestors. The Turks were only in Europe because they were invited there by short sighted Roman rulers more intent on windy rhetoric and political self-aggrandisement in the empty world of the court than actually getting their hands dirty on the battlefield.

As for being "the oldest continuous polity", that's such a specious claim. The Roman state began on the Tiber c. 500 BC (traditionally c.700 BC) not in Thrace in 330 AD (so about 1953 years). If we can discount interruptions like the Latin Empire and complete transformations like the establishment of the Principate then we must allow that the Pharaohs ruled a state for longer with only two serious interregnums(so c. 2300 years), and there's allegedly been one family on the throne of Japan for longer than either of them (c.2660 years). Likewise China has a state system with continuity reaching back to the Shang if not earlier (over 3600 years).

Shrill narrowly defined claims like this demonstrate biased thinking, not grand antiquity. In many ways the Osmanli state continues the tradition of Rome, at least as much as other contemporary claimants (like the various Tsars and Frankish imitators) and definitely more so than a republic founded in the early 19th century.

[lodewijk]

As for being "the oldest continuous polity", that's such a specious claim. The Roman state began on the Tiber c. 500 BC (traditionally c.700 BC) not in Thrace in 330 AD (so about 1953 years). If we can discount interruptions like the Latin Empire and complete transformations like the establishment of the Principate then we must allow that the Pharaohs ruled a state for longer with only two serious interregnums(so c. 2300 years), and there's allegedly been one family on the throne of Japan for longer than either of them (c.2660 years). Likewise China has a state system with continuity reaching back to the Shang if not earlier (over 3600 years).

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

1. Empire of Japan: minimum 1743 years to date (see above)
2. Byzantine Empire: 874 years (uninterrupted from 330 to 1204)
3. Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806)
4. Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)
5. Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936)
6. Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431)
7. Ottoman Empire: 624 years (1299-1923)
8. Roman Empire: 503 years (27 BCE-476)
9. Parthian Empire: 471 years (247 BCE-224)
10. Han Empire: 422 years (202 BCE-220)
11. Habsburg Empire (+ Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empires): 392 years (1526-1918)
12. Mughal Empire: 331 years (1526-1857)
13. Ming Empire: 276 years (1368-1644)
14. Qing Empire: 268 years (1644-1912)
15. Russian Empire: 204 years (1721-1917)

eastern roman indeed have their own place.

source

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...tes-in-history

[Cyclops]

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

1. Empire of Japan: minimum 1743 years to date (see above)
2. Byzantine Empire: 874 years (uninterrupted from 330 to 1204)
3. Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806)
4. Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)
5. Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936)
6. Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431)
7. Ottoman Empire: 624 years (1299-1923)
8. Roman Empire: 503 years (27 BCE-476)
9. Parthian Empire: 471 years (247 BCE-224)
10. Han Empire: 422 years (202 BCE-220)
11. Habsburg Empire (+ Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empires): 392 years (1526-1918)
12. Mughal Empire: 331 years (1526-1857)
13. Ming Empire: 276 years (1368-1644)
14. Qing Empire: 268 years (1644-1912)
15. Russian Empire: 204 years (1721-1917)

eastern roman indeed have their own place.

source

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...tes-in-history

Intersting, thanks for posting.

There are a number of bizarre anomalies in that list. The Roman Empire in 330 was the same one as the Roman Empire in 329 (there were a number of capitals besides Rome before Constantinople). Likewise the Empire that elected a Hapsburg ruler in 1526 was not a new creation: it very much ended in 1806 and not 1918. The list frequently manages to confuse dynasties with polities, a charming but ignorant error. The various Chinese dynasties mentioned all aspired to be Son of Heaven in the Middle Kingdom: they did not see a new Empire rise or fall, merely a reallocation of the mandate if Heaven.

As such it's not a very useful tool in this discussion except to the extent that it disagrees with the silly allegation about the ERE made earlier.

[Mamlaz]

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

1. Empire of Japan: minimum 1743 years to date (see above)
2. Byzantine Empire: 874 years (uninterrupted from 330 to 1204)
3. Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806)
4. Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)
5. Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936)
6. Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431)
7. Ottoman Empire: 624 years (1299-1923)
8. Roman Empire: 503 years (27 BCE-476)
9. Parthian Empire: 471 years (247 BCE-224)
10. Han Empire: 422 years (202 BCE-220)
11. Habsburg Empire (+ Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empires): 392 years (1526-1918)
12. Mughal Empire: 331 years (1526-1857)
13. Ming Empire: 276 years (1368-1644)
14. Qing Empire: 268 years (1644-1912)
15. Russian Empire: 204 years (1721-1917)

1) Empire of Japan was founded in 1868 lol, to count Japan as a single political entity for the past 1743 years is ridiculous.

2) Alright, that is for those who demand a distinction between Constantinople and Rome.

7) The Ottoman Empire was not founded until either 1453 or 1512, depending on how you look at it, as before that it was merely another Sultanate.

8) If the Ottomans get the 1299 start date, then Rome gets the couple centuries of the Republic as well, as it was literally the same political entity that still had the same exact Roman Senate just with one dude above the others in authority.

10) Han empire was interrupted in the year 9 by the Xin dynasty; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xin_dynasty

11) Austrian Empire was formed in 1804, before that, Austria was just a Duchy and Archduchy within the HRE.

12) Could be pushed back to 1547, as the Russian Tsardom was indeed an Empire with a Tsar(Caesar) on the throne; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsardom_of_Russia

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Japanese Empire was not exactly founded in 1868. That was only when the Tokugawa Shogunate was abolished and the Emperor took direct control of the state. The Emperor has been in charge of Japan since Asuka period. Though in those days the "Emperor" was more of a High King than an actual Emperor. The title being more a claim to rule Japan and an attempt to equate themselves to the Emperor of China.

[Dick Cheney.]

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

1. Empire of Japan: minimum 1743 years to date (see above)
2. Byzantine Empire: 874 years (uninterrupted from 330 to 1204)
3. Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806)
4. Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)
5. Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936)
6. Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431)
7. Ottoman Empire: 624 years (1299-1923)
8. Roman Empire: 503 years (27 BCE-476)
9. Parthian Empire: 471 years (247 BCE-224)
10. Han Empire: 422 years (202 BCE-220)
11. Habsburg Empire (+ Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empires): 392 years (1526-1918)
12. Mughal Empire: 331 years (1526-1857)
13. Ming Empire: 276 years (1368-1644)
14. Qing Empire: 268 years (1644-1912)
15. Russian Empire: 204 years (1721-1917)

eastern roman indeed have their own place.

source

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...tes-in-history

Are we going to consider the Catholic Church a political entity? Start date for the papacy is 317AD if going by the Donation of Constantine.

[Cyclops]

I would say the period of Papal temporal rule begins with the fall of the majority of the exarchate to the Lombards and the realisation the Empire was not coming back, say around 600 AD.

[O'Hea]

I have to say, that list uses a really muddled and inconsistent definition of continuity. When the Roman Empire moves its capitol to Constantinople, it stops being the Roman Empire, but when the Great Han move their capitol to Luoyang they're still the Han. The reign of Augustus is a break from the previous Roman state, but none of the usurpations, interregnums, or dramatic reforms are until Constantine. And I won't even touch the Japan one.

[hellheaven1987]

The Japanese Empire was not exactly founded in 1868. That was only when the Tokugawa Shogunate was abolished and the Emperor took direct control of the state. The Emperor has been in charge of Japan since Asuka period. Though in those days the "Emperor" was more of a High King than an actual Emperor. The title being more a claim to rule Japan and an attempt to equate themselves to the Emperor of China.

Retook. There was once a time when Emperor directly controlled the state before military elites seized the power.

but when the Great Han move their capitol to Luoyang they're still the Han.

Or Chinese want you to believe that.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Arguably. I think the last emperor to directly rule was before the Fujiwara ministers. Not including Emperor Go Daigo. Legally though the emperors lost control probably since the time when Taira Kiyomori became Daijo Daijin or more appropriately when Minamoto Yoritomo was made Shogun. While Shogun was not a new position in this case it was the first time that it legally implied a military dictatorship. Prior to that it was a title for army commanders and administrative duties as military governors.

[hellheaven1987]

Arguably. I think the last emperor to directly rule was before the Fujiwara ministers. Not including Emperor Go Daigo. Legally though the emperors lost control probably since the time when Taira Kiyomori became Daijo Daijin or more appropriately when Minamoto Yoritomo was made Shogun. While Shogun was not a new position in this case it was the first time that it legally implied a military dictatorship. Prior to that it was a title for army commanders and administrative duties as military governors.

Yes but from Asuka to Heian period there are five hundreds years of history, so there is a solid base to justify direct rule of royal court in Meiji Restoration. General speaking, the relation of Shogun and royal court is always uneasy and distrustful throughout 900 years of Shogunate.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Fair enough. It was generally the Emperors who had legitimacy and the Shogunate who exercised military power. The on going issue with the Shogunate is that the Shoguns themselves did not have that much military power, usually they had lots of allies due to the feudal system. What happens when the feudal lords stop backing the Shogun is really when the Shogunate ends. That being the case it isn't hard to see why by the end of it the Shogun ended up being in the same corner as the Emperor. Hell The Hojo clan acted as regents (Shikken) for the Minamoto Shoguns. Oda Nobunaga was able to make the Ashikaga Shogun subservient to his plans by showing up in Kyoto with a huge army and installing his own candidate, as well as the fact that he never accepted a formal rank. Oda Nobunaga is the more interesting in my opinion since he did not depend on feudal support. Unlike say Toyotomi Hideyori who was defeated by large scale defection and the Tokugawa Shogunate who were overthrown by the Tozama daimyos and their modernized armies and more or less a total inability for other clans to put up a fight. So aside from controlling the institutions, the Edo Bakufu had no obvious advantages.

[lodewijk]

by the way in my opinion there is need, a verry essential one to clearly define what is the meaning "empire", "goverment", "political entities", etc, etc scrutinize, categorize it and we get a narrow and perhaps exact definition of it and make an undisputable list.

not just a one list but like on the link i had posted, many list with many categories.

instead we only talking about who better, who strongest, who smartest, etc...etc. Spice up with nationalism, with their own cheerleader and looking childish fighting for who get the biggest cookie.

Are we going to consider the Catholic Church a political entity? Start date for the papacy is 317AD if going by the Donation of Constantine.

it may be, but in my opinion caholic church more like faction or political party or even an unique social caste.


i reasoning that because the catholic church in medieval world as a whole (exception for the papal state) often operating/living under secular or feudal entity especially in medieval europe and verry often clash with secular ruler in manny investiture contest.

Moreover the clergy of church's loyalties verry vary. Someday they loyal to their king where they come from, the other day they loyal to the foreign power i.e the pope or in narrow sense papal state.

i see it more like a unique social caste or political faction that try to absorb secular rule through divine cause.


for the papal state to vatican city it may count. but should not count as catholic church as a whole.

by the way the donation of constantine is likely a forgery, a trick use by church to get more power and influence over european monarch?
i thought it was make circa 8th century.

[Copperknickers II]

Why is the Papacy even being discussed, it was never an empire. If this list is just about polities it will look totally different. For one, the Kingdom of Scotland lasted for 863 years before the Act of Union ended it so we take number 2 after the Romans. And then you have the likes of San Marino and so on.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

1. Empire of Japan: arguably 1743 years to date.
2. Roman Empire: 1713 years (509 BCE-1204 CE)
3. Aksum: ~860 years (c. 100-c. 960 CE)
4. Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806 CE)
5. Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)
6. Khwarezrm: 690 years (305-995 CE)
7. Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936 CE)
8. Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431 CE)
9. Ottoman Empire: 624 years (1299-1923 CE)
10. Abbasid Empire: 508 years (750-1258 CE)
11. Parthian Empire: 471 years (247 BCE-224 CE)
12. Sassanid Empire: 427 Years (224-651 CE)
13. Han Empire: 422 years (202 BCE-220 CE)
14. Habsburg Empire (+ Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empires): 392 years (1526-1918 CE)
15. Mughal Empire: 331 years (1526-1857 CE)

Fixed that for you.

[yevon]

the trouble is almost everyone claimed themselve is " empire/emperor".

Even Korean's and Vietnamese's leaders claimed they are Emperor in the past.

[lodewijk]

the trouble is almost everyone claimed themselve is " empire/emperor".

Even Korean's and Vietnamese's leaders claimed they are Emperor in the past.

indeed that is a problem too, since such self entitlement just making another dispute over definition. making thing more meticulous.

[KEA]

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

1. Empire of Japan: minimum 1743 years to date (see above)
2. Byzantine Empire: 874 years (uninterrupted from 330 to 1204)
3. Holy Roman Empire: 844 years (962-1806)
4. Zhou Empire: 790 years (1046–256 BCE)
5. Ethiopian Empire: 666 years (1270-1936)
6. Khmer Empire: 629 years (802–1431)
7. Ottoman Empire: 624 years (1299-1923)
8. Roman Empire: 503 years (27 BCE-476)
9. Parthian Empire: 471 years (247 BCE-224)
10. Han Empire: 422 years (202 BCE-220)
11. Habsburg Empire (+ Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empires): 392 years (1526-1918)
12. Mughal Empire: 331 years (1526-1857)
13. Ming Empire: 276 years (1368-1644)
14. Qing Empire: 268 years (1644-1912)
15. Russian Empire: 204 years (1721-1917)

A lot of problems with that list.

(2) + (8) There was no such thing as a "Byzantine Empire", this was the Roman Empire both by historical continuation and by self-definition. The dates 27 BC and 1204 AD are also rather arbitrary. Correct would be 753 BC to 1453 AD, making 2206 years and clearly the longest lasting empire in history.

(3) The beginning of the Medieval German empire is usually set at 843 (division of the Carolingian Empire). Lifespan 963 years.

(11) 1526 as start date for a "Habsburg Empire" probably is a mistake and meant to be 1516 (the year Charles IV became king of Spain). Anyways, there never was a Habsburg Empire. Habsburgers were German Emperors (with interruptions) from 1273 to 1806, Kings of Spain from 1516 to 1700 (plus a couple of more crowns here and there) and Emperors of Austria from 1806 to 1918. So, at best the later would qualify as a "Habsburg Empire" for 102 years. BTW, where are the Spanish and British Empires in that list?

[Copperknickers II]

A lot of problems with that list.

(2) + (8) There was no such thing as a "Byzantine Empire", this was the Roman Empire both by historical continuation and by self-definition. The dates 27 BC and 1204 AD are also rather arbitrary. Correct would be 753 BC to 1453 AD, making 2206 years and clearly the longest lasting empire in history.

(3) The beginning of the Medieval German empire is usually set at 843 (division of the Carolingian Empire). Lifespan 963 years.

(11) 1526 as start date for a "Habsburg Empire" probably is a mistake and meant to be 1516 (the year Charles IV became king of Spain). Anyways, there never was a Habsburg Empire. Habsburgers were German Emperors (with interruptions) from 1273 to 1806, Kings of Spain from 1516 to 1700 (plus a couple of more crowns here and there) and Emperors of Austria from 1806 to 1918. So, at best the later would qualify as a "Habsburg Empire" for 102 years. BTW, where are the Spanish and British Empires in that list?

The British Empire lasted from 1707 (when the Act of Union created the United Kingdom) up to the 1950s, that's around 250 years. So maybe it would edge out the Russians.

[Owlparrot3]

The main problem in this discussion is that everyone is struggling to make a choice between an empire's name or some family which ruled that empire .