Age of Empires

[saxdude]

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.

Those parameters are really silly, why are you are using the foundation of Rome (the city) and the capture of Constantinople (capital of an empire that had long lost Rome) as the markers for the begining and end of an empire? Could the kingdom, the republic and the empire really constitute the same entity? Nevermind the whole byzantine/roman debate. Going by that logic then from the rule of Qin Shi Huang, to the current president Xi Jingping it's been 2259 years, making it the longest lasting state in history (and continuing). After all, China is China and has remained Chinese, under the communists, under the manchurians and under the Mongols.

[athanaric]

Those parameters are really silly, why are you are using the foundation of Rome (the city) and the capture of Constantinople (capital of an empire that had long lost Rome) as the markers for the begining and end of an empire? Could the kingdom, the republic and the empire really constitute the same entity? Nevermind the whole byzantine/roman debate. Going by that logic then from the rule of Qin Shi Huang, to the current president Xi Jingping it's been 2259 years, making it the longest lasting state in history (and continuing). After all, China is China and has remained Chinese, under the communists, under the manchurians and under the Mongols.

Indeed, and this again shows why one needs to establish key criteria and definitions before making such a list.

For instance, if one were to make the claim that the Byzantine Empire were the only true successor or to - even direct continuation of - the Roman Empire (as established by Augustus), unlike the Holy Roman Empire in the west and the Ottoman Empire in the east, one would have to make a coherent argument with a list of criteria. Example:

Dynasty
Culture
Main Language
Religion
Core Ethnicity
Territorial overlap
etc.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

This is why I argue that it should be based on the existence of a contiguous central ruling government that was not interrupted by an external polity. Therefore the Romans remain the longest from (traditionally) 509 BC to 1204 AD.

The kingdom never existed, the Republic and Principate were a tumultuous but relatively seamless evolution, not a sudden transformation or overthrow. The "Byzantine" Empire was never a separate political entity even when there were "two halves" of the Empire. It shared far more in common with Rome than the Hellenic past, our association of it with a "Greek" state is purely because that was the dominant language (Latin remained in use until the 12th century even if it was marginalized) and based on the geography. It didn't actually associate itself with a Greek identity until after the events of 1204 AD, and even then they still called themselves Romans.

China, by this argument, would have lasted from the Han and well into to the Period of Disunion, so roughly 500 years or so. Then again from the Sui through (arguably) the end of the Song.

The claim of an emperor from 660 BC onwards by Japan is complete BS. Their emperor first appeared around 800 AD, if I recall correctly.

[Mamlaz]

Again, the rule of the Han was interrupted by the Xin dynasty.

Han China had 215 years of continuous rule, not 500.


On that note, what about Egypt?

[Sar1n]

Egypt is pretty tricky. The relations between dynasties is often uncertain, and there never actually was a period of continuous unified rule for more than ~600 years before civil war, crisis of succession or invasion tore the kingdom apart.

AFAIK the longest period of single dynasty rule in Egypt was some ~275 years for pre-ptolemaic Egypt. Ptolemaic empire actually had only little over 130 years of uninterrupted independent rule before the whole mess with Antiochus IV. Since then, Egypt wasn't independent for longer periond than those above.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Not sure about the Xin Dynasty. It's not like Wang Mang's rule was ever uncontested because ever since 6 AD, that is three years before Wang Mang was even crowned Emperor, there were already revolts starting. Pretenders to the Han Dynasty kept popping up which means that Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty was never secure and never completely in control. For Liu Xiu to restore the Han Dynasty he was required to defeat other pretenders of the Liu clan.

[athanaric]

The claim of an emperor from 660 BC onwards by Japan is complete BS. Their emperor first appeared around 800 AD, if I recall correctly.

That's the problem when you include mythology in a such a list. Which is a very common thing in popular history, and, dare I say it, sometimes among historians as well.
Some of the dates from Classical Antiquity are likely fictional as well, e.g. the starting point of the Olympic games, or the odd "coincidence" that the (alleged) kings in Rome were overthrown in the same year as the tyrants in Athens. Though at least these dates aren't that far off.

[Mamlaz]

Not sure about the Xin Dynasty. It's not like Wang Mang's rule was ever uncontested because ever since 6 AD, that is three years before Wang Mang was even crowned Emperor, there were already revolts starting. Pretenders to the Han Dynasty kept popping up which means that Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty was never secure and never completely in control. For Liu Xiu to restore the Han Dynasty he was required to defeat other pretenders of the Liu clan.

It is not about Wang Mang being Emperor.

It is about Liu Xiu not being Emperor.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yeah but Liu Xiu wasn't the only Han pretender, there were others of the Liu clan which crowned themselves Emperor.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The claim of an emperor from 660 BC onwards by Japan is complete BS. Their emperor first appeared around 800 AD, if I recall correctly.

It's hard to know for sure because sources like the Nihon Shoki have intertwined history and hearsay with myth.
Traditionally there were multiple tribes in Japan. Our first actual source comes from the Cao Wei Dynasty in China, which mentions the Queen Himiko of Yamatai, one of the stronger tribes of the south. The first unified Japanese state seems to have come from the Asuka period (roughly 538 to 710). Tribal leaders called themselves Okimi (roughly Great King) it was around this time that the ruler of this confederacy began to call themselves "Tenno" (Light of Heaven) which was a way to claim legitimacy over the various clans by claiming imperial title in the manner of Chinese Emperors. The Nara period (710 to 794) saw the reformation of the state along Chinese lines so that it became less of a tribal confederacy and more of an actual centralized state or feudal state. It was actually in this time that the Nihon Shoki was written, obviously as a way for the Emperor to claim more legitimacy and making it appear as though the Imperial line stretched back for a thousand years. Using this control of history the Emperor was able to make it seem as if there had always been an Emperor or at least that there had been for centuries, hence his position and that of his heirs would be secure in the eyes of his subjects and so long as he had enough military power he could keep the tribal or clan lords in check.

[Condottiere 40K]

You're looking for continuity, and regimes have a tendency to manipulate perception of that to fit their agendas.

This seems especially important for divine kingships.

With Egypt there are clear breaks, but the concept of divine kingship prevailed, though I understand it flowed through the female line, which would be one reason to marry your sister.

[hellheaven1987]

Their emperor first appeared around 800 AD, if I recall correctly.

Around 400~600 AD.

China, by this argument, would have lasted from the Han and well into to the Period of Disunion, so roughly 500 years or so.

Around 400 years. and that is if you think East and West Han are same dynasty.

Then again from the Sui through (arguably) the end of the Song.

There is a clear intermediate period between Tang and Song (about 50 years).

[saxdude]

Indeed, and this again shows why one needs to establish key criteria and definitions before making such a list.

For instance, if one were to make the claim that the Byzantine Empire were the only true successor or to - even direct continuation of - the Roman Empire (as established by Augustus), unlike the Holy Roman Empire in the west and the Ottoman Empire in the east, one would have to make a coherent argument with a list of criteria. Example:

Dynasty
Culture
Main Language
Religion
Core Ethnicity
Territorial overlap
etc.

I agree, one has to make the case of how each of these affected the political structure of the polity, as well as to what constitutes a collapse and a continuos rule, for example:

This is why I argue that it should be based on the existence of a contiguous central ruling government that was not interrupted by an external polity. Therefore the Romans remain the longest from (traditionally) 509 BC to 1204 AD.

The kingdom never existed, the Republic and Principate were a tumultuous but relatively seamless evolution, not a sudden transformation or overthrow.

Ok, I will grant you that much, it was a "seemless" transition of power in which the state was neither conquered or replaced by agents outside of it's political system.

The "Byzantine" Empire was never a separate political entity even when there were "two halves" of the Empire. It shared far more in common with Rome than the Hellenic past, our association of it with a "Greek" state is purely because that was the dominant language (Latin remained in use until the 12th century even if it was marginalized) and based on the geography. It didn't actually associate itself with a Greek identity until after the events of 1204 AD, and even then they still called themselves Romans.

Yes it was, no matter how much one argues that the romans themselves saw it as one entity, the fact is that the empire was split into two, administered by two different imperial courts that were entirely unaccountable to one another, and that, at one point, even went to war with each other. If we are going to go by that logic then your arguments on China falls apart, as there was never a moment in time during or after the fall of Han Dynasty, in which China as a state ceased to exist. Every competing warlord, every dynasty, and every emperor bar the mongols (whom by the time that they conquered the entirety of China had already split and incorporated themselves into the Chinese political structure as the Yuan Dynasty), was vying for rule as emperor of china, and claimed to be the true succesor of the state. The period of disunion is as much an end to the chinese state as the Tetrarchy was.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It's hard to know for sure because sources like the Nihon Shoki have intertwined history and hearsay with myth.
Traditionally there were multiple tribes in Japan. Our first actual source comes from the Cao Wei Dynasty in China, which mentions the Queen Himiko of Yamatai, one of the stronger tribes of the south. The first unified Japanese state seems to have come from the Asuka period (roughly 538 to 710). Tribal leaders called themselves Okimi (roughly Great King) it was around this time that the ruler of this confederacy began to call themselves "Tenno" (Light of Heaven) which was a way to claim legitimacy over the various clans by claiming imperial title in the manner of Chinese Emperors. The Nara period (710 to 794) saw the reformation of the state along Chinese lines so that it became less of a tribal confederacy and more of an actual centralized state or feudal state. It was actually in this time that the Nihon Shoki was written, obviously as a way for the Emperor to claim more legitimacy and making it appear as though the Imperial line stretched back for a thousand years. Using this control of history the Emperor was able to make it seem as if there had always been an Emperor or at least that there had been for centuries, hence his position and that of his heirs would be secure in the eyes of his subjects and so long as he had enough military power he could keep the tribal or clan lords in check.

Then 1307 years, if we use the date of 710. Putting it just behind the Roman central state at 1713.

Yes it was, no matter how much one argues that the romans themselves saw it as one entity, the fact is that the empire was split into two, administered by two different imperial courts that were entirely unaccountable to one another, and that, at one point, even went to war with each other.

First of all no there wasn't. The Western and Eastern courts operated in unison and it was a system of co-emperors, not independent polities. It's actually quite clear if you look at the events of the 4th and 5th centuries. There wasn't any real permanent division until after the end of the Theodosian Dynasty and even then the East continued to operate in support of the West. And even then, by your logic, since the central government was moved to Constantinople under Constantine that would technically make the Western Half the part of the Empire that would become the "Byzantine" Empire, while the government in Constantinople would be the continuous one.

China saw the development of independent state entities; Rome never did. China was conquered by external entities in intermittent periods, Rome was only once in 1204 (and hence why I argue that was when the Empire fell).

There have been entire books written on this subject as well as dozens of papers. See "Between the Old Rome and the New - Imperial Cooperation," "Roman Identity in Byzantium - A Critical Approach," "Roman Identity in the Sixth Century,"

More and more mainstream scholars are beginning to revert from the term Byzantine or at the very least mention that the Empire was the Roman Empire.

[Ludicus]

15 longest uninterrupted empires in history

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 .

Precisely.
The Portuguese empire began in 1415 and it didn't give up its last vestige of land until 1999 (Macau). It was the first global empire in history, spanning four continents.It began when the Portuguese took Ceuta (1415), and the expansion continued as they moved into Africa, India, Asia and South America.
Robert Aldrich, book " The Age of Empires", Chapter 3, Portugal: Empire building in the Old Word and the New", page 67,

Portugal was the first European country to acquire an overseas empire and the last to renounce it.
By the 1540's, one of the smallest, most remote and poorest nations of Europe had created an empire stretching around the world. The imperial centre of gravity shifted from Africa and Asia, to south America before 1600, and back again to Africa in the 1820's. The Portuguese presence remained omnipresent.

The Portuguese empire was an uninterrupted empire. The Iberian Union (1580/1640) was a union of crowns, not an union of empires.
The New Cambridge Modern History, volume 3, explains: (pages 248/9)

Philip could now claim the rights of a conqueror.He found it prudent not to do so. At Cortes of Tomar in 1584, and in a subsequent statement of 1582, he promised to uphold Portuguese laws and privileges, to appoint only Portuguese to official positions and not introduce Castilian taxation.The Portuguese colonial empire continued as a separate empire under the crown. Only later, from the last years of the century, the disadvantages of this separatism became apparent. Then Portuguese colonies and ships were attacked by the enemies of Spain, by Holland, England and France.The Spanish...were not altogether displeased to see the Portuguese weakened and attacks diverted from their own colonies...The Union of crowns of Portugal and Castile did not produce the hoped-for unification of the peninsula.In 1640 the formal union broke up again"

[Copperknickers II]

The "Byzantine" Empire was never a separate political entity even when there were "two halves" of the Empire.

What about when there was only one half, and it wasn't the half which included Rome?

(Latin remained in use until the 12th century even if it was marginalized)

Not in any meaningful way. Even by the end of the 6th century it was pretty much dead in Constantinople as regards everyday use, it remained in use in the same way it remained in use in Europe in the 19th century, as a comatose language revived on occasion for rarefied and esoteric uses by scholars and revivalists.

It shared far more in common with Rome than the Hellenic past, our association of it with a "Greek" state is purely because that was the dominant language and based on the geography. It didn't actually associate itself with a Greek identity until after the events of 1204 AD, and even then they still called themselves Romans.

They did themselves perhaps, but the actual people of Italy, i.e. the original Romans, did not identify the Eastern Roman Empire as their own people after the collapse of the West, they viewed the Byzantine occupation of Rome after its reconquest from the Goths as unwelcome domination at the hands of foreigners they explicitly called 'Greeks'. Indeed Rome under Byzantine rule was home to a large population of Eastern 'Romans' from Greece, Anatolia, Syria and Egypt, sent there to administrate the conquered province, who lived in an area nicknamed 'Blachernae'.

Compare the melting pot Rome of, say, the 1st century AD (when Greek speakers were ubiquitous but many if not most were slaves and subordinate to the native Latins, and many of the latter spoke Greek), and the segregated imperial administration headed by distant Greek speakers of the 6th century AD, whose language the locals couldn't even understand on account of the total disintegration of the Pagan Greco-Roman classical tradition within education and high society. The above says a great deal about the changes that had happened over the preceding decades. The ethnic composition of the city was largely unchanged but the role reversal and walls that had been built between the two societies make for a contrast between the two time periods which couldn't be starker.

The loss of Italy, even though it only lasted a lifetime, was enough to mark a very severe turning point in the reality of Roman-ness. If 1204, a temporary conquest of the capital city of the Byzantines, marks the end of continuity, then I'm pretty sure the loss of the eponymous city of the Empire must be viewed the same way: changing the capital was one thing but losing Rome altogether...

As far as the Romans of Rome during the Byzantine period were concerned they were the only real Romans, that designation having been reduced once again to its original status as the demonym of a city, not of a huge multi-ethnic polity. This attitude continued for a long time in Rome itself even if other Europeans did refer to the Byzantines as 'Romans': a letter from the Pope to Constantinople in the 10th century is addressed to 'the Emperor of the Greeks'.

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

[Condottiere 40K]

Could be more like two successor kingdoms, with one claiming hegemony over the other.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

What about when there was only one half, and it wasn't the half which included Rome?

It did until 751 AD.

Not in any meaningful way. Even by the end of the 6th century it was pretty much dead in Constantinople as regards everyday use, it remained in use in the same way it remained in use in Europe in the 19th century, as a comatose language revived on occasion for rarefied and esoteric uses by scholars and revivalists.

That's also a myth, Latin was the dominant language of the army at the turn of the 7th century and remained a requirement for military service until Herakleios. It was also still prevalent at the court into the 7th century, as well as within the bureaucracy. Many areas of the Eastern Empire were still dominated by Latin speakers before the Arab conquests, and during the 4th century Greek was actually a shrinking language being slowly superseded by Latin before the "division." Greek may have been the common man's language but Latin was required to be known for military service or administrative service.

They did themselves perhaps, but the actual people of Italy, i.e. the original Romans, did not identify the Eastern Roman Empire as their own people after the collapse of the West, they viewed the Byzantine occupation of Rome after its reconquest from the Goths as unwelcome domination at the hands of foreigners they explicitly called 'Greeks'. Indeed Rome under Byzantine rule was home to a large population of Eastern 'Romans' from Greece, Anatolia, Syria and Egypt, sent there to administrate the conquered province, who lived in an area nicknamed 'Blachernae'.

That opinion doesn't come about until after the beginnings of the Justinianic plague and the devastation of the Gothic wars that tore Italy to shambles. The initial conquest was met with very little public dissatisfaction, it was the extended war that brought it about.

Compare the melting pot Rome of, say, the 1st century AD (when Greek speakers were ubiquitous but many if not most were slaves and subordinate to the native Latins, and many of the latter spoke Greek), and the segregated imperial administration headed by distant Greek speakers of the 6th century AD, whose language the locals couldn't even understand on account of the total disintegration of the Pagan Greco-Roman classical tradition within education and high society. The above says a great deal about the changes that had happened over the preceding decades. The ethnic composition of the city was largely unchanged but the role reversal and walls that had been built between the two societies make for a contrast between the two time periods which couldn't be starker.

Fair point.

The loss of Italy, even though it only lasted a lifetime, was enough to mark a very severe turning point in the reality of Roman-ness. If 1204, a temporary conquest of the capital city of the Byzantines, marks the end of continuity, then I'm pretty sure the loss of the eponymous city of the Empire must be viewed the same way: changing the capital was one thing but losing Rome altogether...

The city of Rome had long no longer been the administrative heart of the Empire. Unlike 1204, the loss of Rome did not see the complete dismantling of the Central Roman government, whose senior authority was in Constantinople. The Imperial regalia were sent back to Constantinople and Odoacer was appointed Rex of a Roman client state. Technically, Italy still belonged to the Romans until Theodoric defeated Odoacer and took Italy, but even then he was head of basically Foederati kingdom with the same status that had been given the Vandals back in 442.

On the other hand, the conquest of Constantinople saw the complete removal of Roman authority from the city and the dismantling of the central Roman state governing apparatus, leaving behind the subsidiary governing apparatus in Anatolia that "restored" Roman hegemony over the city. Hence why I argue that is the point when the Empire fell, and that the Empire of Nicaea, as it is often called, is a Rump state that could more accurately be called the "Byzantine Empire" or more appropriately the "Constantinopolitan Empire" or something along those lines.

As far as the Romans of Rome during the Byzantine period were concerned they were the only real Romans, that designation having been reduced once again to its original status as the demonym of a city, not of a huge multi-ethnic polity. This attitude continued for a long time in Rome itself even if other Europeans did refer to the Byzantines as 'Romans': a letter from the Pope to Constantinople in the 10th century is addressed to 'the Emperor of the Greeks'.

The term "Emperor of the Greeks" and vice versa was intentional delegitimization of the Roman Emperor in the eyes of the West. It was in actuality only the Pope and the Franks/HRE that called them the "Empire of the Greeks," and although the people are often referred to as Greeks the majority of other medieval states referred to them as the legitimate "Empire of the Romans" including the Arabs, Rus, Slavs, etc. The term "Roman" was a status of citizenship and applied to a multiethnic body, those who were governed by the Roman state were Romans and that included the Greeks and Armenians and other peoples who made up the 5th-13th century empire. Those who were not governed by the Empire were not Romans (although in Roman eyes the Empire had no borders).

They were not separate political entities, all of modern Roman scholarship is leaning towards that view.

[Ludicus]

China saw the development of independent state entities; Rome never did. China was conquered by external entities in intermittent periods.

...who then absorbed Chinese culture and the language rather than the other way around. I don't see the Roman empire...where is it?
The adaptability of the Chinese civilization puts in in a different class, as Armesto put it "It outgrew the rest.It outlives the rest. China is still there, still growing, still exporting influence."
Chinese civilization is characterized by an exceptional cultural cohesion /continuity/longevity.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The reason the Roman people no longer exist is because the Ottomans did their best to suppress nationalism during the development of the concept around the rest of the world. A big problem with many people's perspectives of history is that the concept of a nation or an ethnicity didn't exist until the 17th century.

In the Greek war of independence the British officers were horrified to find many Greeks referred to their country and themselves as "Romans" but the leaders of the revolt had taken a Greek identity because it was far more likely to garner international support from the Kings of Europe. They then impressed this identity upon the various Greek citizens and most of the Roman identity was wiped out. You can still find a couple groups of Greek speaking villages in South Italy, Greece, South Bulgaria/FYROM, and Pontic Turkey that call themselves Romans and their language Romeika (Roman Greek). But we're talking a combined population in the hundreds.