Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Empires Posted: 31-Oct-2005 at 10:06 |
He'd probably say something about insecurity, repression and hatred of our father.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Celestial
Janissary
Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 20:13 |
I'd say it is the Roman empire. 753 bc to 476 ad. more than 1000 years. It was a hyperpower and the longest lasting empire in history.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 23:20 |
The Byzantine Empire lasted longer than any other empire.
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 05:28 |
Originally posted by Decebal
Alright, let's pretend for a second that the Roman and Byzantine empires were actually separate (whhich they were not). And that the Byzantines start out in 476, according to your definition. Then the Byzantine Empire lasted from 476 to 1453, which is 977 years, or quite a bit longer than the Ottoman.
Or if you split hairs, from 395 (the date of the final separation) to 1461 (fall of the Trebizond empire and the true end of the Byzantines). Or 1066 years.
Either way, the Byzantines lasted far longer than the Ottomans. |
395-1453, but it must not be forgotten that especially in last 250-300 years, it was more like a kingdom sized force than an empire, while already losing whole Middle East except Central and Western Anatolia between beginning from 7th century and further losing presence in Balkans by time.
Edited by Kapikulu - 05-Nov-2006 at 06:09
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 01:07 |
Kapikulu, size doesnt matter in this particular situation. What matters is the fact that the empire still existed.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 06:35 |
I think that it is fair to say that the Byzantine empire is more or less a direct continuation of the Roman empire. Politically, the links are very strong. So I reckon that makes the Roman/Byzantine empire the longest in history. Around 750BC to 1453AD- that's a long time!
|
|
Hellios
Arch Duke
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 18:17 |
Originally posted by HALOMAN
Which Great Empires Ruled The World For The Longet Time |
Various members will tell you the "mini-empires" of their countries were the longest ruling ones and you'll spend a lot of time discussing the definition of "empire" and "world" according the people of the various periods.
Edited by Hellios - 06-Nov-2006 at 18:20
|
|
Khashayarshah
Janissary
Joined: 31-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 19:19 |
the egyptian empire lasted 3000 years, the persian empire lasted around
300, and the byzintine empire about 900. The roman empire, not the
republic, lasted 200-240 years.
|
Who is the real fool? the man who says what to do, or the man that follows him?
|
|
Dream208
Pretorian
Joined: 22-Jan-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 176
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 20:32 |
Does Chinese dynasties count as intact continnum if we deployed Roman-Byzantine standard ?
You know... Roman Empires had various dynasties, Chinese empire had various dynasties, the only difference is... Chinese dynasties sometimes last more than 200 years.
So.. why when we talk about the Chinese history, the various dynasties suddenly became their own "individual empire" instead of greater continnum?
PS: if you wanted to use the great division period to refute this opinion, you should first think about the frequent civil wars happened in Roman everytime should a dynasty collapse.
Edited by Dream208 - 06-Nov-2006 at 20:35
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 20:43 |
Well, Is not the one that lasted longer, but the first where the sun never set , during 300 years!
The Spanish Empire:
In 1550:
And in 1770:
Pinguin
Edited by pinguin - 06-Nov-2006 at 20:45
|
|
Hellios
Arch Duke
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 17:49 |
Compliment: The Spanish empire was big.
Addition: The British Empire, later called the British Commonwealth, later called the British Commonwealth of Nations, later called the Commonwealth of Nations, was a 53 country confederation of nations.
Edited by Hellios - 07-Nov-2006 at 18:54
|
|
Hellios
Arch Duke
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 18:01 |
Originally posted by Dream208
Does Chinese dynasties count as intact continnum if we deployed Roman-Byzantine standard ? |
Yes, everything counts if you consider the wording of the topic title and opening question, because what was considered the "world" changed through different periods of history, therefore if somebody says one of their country's empires ruled the known world for longer than the empire you propose, they're right.
Edited by Hellios - 07-Nov-2006 at 18:02
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 19:25 |
Originally posted by Hellios
Compliment: The Spanish empire was big.
Addition: The British Empire, later called the British Commonwealth, later called the British Commonwealth of Nations, later called the Commonwealth of Nations, was a 53 country confederation of nations.
|
And don't forget the Portuguese Empire either.
|
|
Hellios
Arch Duke
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 20:11 |
Pinguin, why did the Spaniards not conquer the Portuguese?
|
|
Dan Carkner
Baron
Joined: 07-Nov-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 490
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 22:45 |
Heh, according to that map the Portuguese had a toehold in Newfoundland?
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 23:31 |
In the course of the 16th century, the Portuguese made two settlements in Cape Breton, one in 1521 and the other in 1567. These two colonies were then annexed by Spain.
In the early charts, the Portuguese flag was frequently represented as waving over Labrador, Newfoundland (Baccaloas), and Nova Scotia, which were sometimes described as "the Land of the Corte Reals" and as the "country discovered by Joao Alvares (early 16th century explorer to Northeastern America)."
Little or nothing is known about these colonies.
Edited by flyingzone - 07-Nov-2006 at 23:37
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 06:12 |
the egyptian empire lasted 3000 years |
Khashayarshah, I really don't think that it was one empire. Each of the 25 (roughly) dynasties were were individual and the countless civil wars and interrmediate periods clearly show that between the pharoahs, the empires that they forged did fall and fragment. I don't think that you can call Egypt from Ahu/Scorpion/Namer to Nectabo II is one empire, but hundereds of small statelets.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 23:01 |
Egypt definately did not have an empire for that long. There were times when the Nubians and other powers invaded and annexed the area as a whole.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 13:23 |
...Not to mention the period of Syrian rule in the 1st intermidate period. There is a ridiculous conception that throughout Ancient history, Egypt was a united and strong empire that managed to retain its own culture through hell and back. This is a huge misconception- Egypt has inherited a vast amount of its culture from Caanan, Mespotamia, North Africa and the Arabian peninsula. When the Egyptians were simple hunter gatherers on the banks of the upper nile, Leonard Wooley's harp of Ur was being plucked for the king for his entertainment. When the Egyptians were building mud brick huts, Gudea of Lagash was building the Zigguart in Larsa, when the Egyptians were making the first basic hyroglyphs, the first centralized state was being founded by Sargon of Akkad. The Egyptians are as absolutley unique and united as we think. A great people and one of finest civilizations on the earth, yes- but many of humanities' first steps into civilization were occuring in Mesopotamia and the further east.
|
|
think
Baron
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 20:27 |
But the Egyptians have the Pyramids, which is why everyone likes Egypt..
|
|