Print Page | Close Window

Longest Reign!!

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4909
Printed Date: 11-Dec-2017 at 08:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Longest Reign!!
Posted By: Perseas
Subject: Longest Reign!!
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 13:35

So which Monarch had the longest reign ever???

From what i found until now Louis XIV reigned from 1643 to 1715 (72 years) but its likely someone must have reigned longer. 

Louis XIV (Louis-Dieudonn) (September 5, 1638 C September 1, 1715) reigned as King of France and King of Navarre from May 14, 1643 until his death.

From women, Empress Kojun of Japan seems to be ahead with 75 years totally.

Her Imperial Majesty Empress Kojun of Japan was born Princess Kuni Nagako (jp: ߃mŮ kuni no miya nagako jo) (March 6, 1903 - June 16, 2000). She was the consort of the Showa Emperor, and mother of HIM the Emperor Akihito.

The Empress Nagako, known posthumously as Empress Kjun (㴾ʺ kjun kg), was the longest lived empress consort (kgo) in Japanese history. She was Crown Princess from 26 January 1924 to 25 December 1926, Empress from 26 December 1925 to 7 January 1989, and Empress Dowager from 7 January 1989 to 16 June 2000.

Any ideas for longer reigns???

 



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.



Replies:
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 14:46
Pharaoh Pepi II reigned for a whopping 94 years! I believe he was in the 5th or 6th dynasty...

-------------
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



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 14:47
According to tradition, Pepi II was the last ruler of Egypt's http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn6.htm - 6th Dynasty , and in fact the last significant ruler of the Old Kingdom prior to the onset of what Egyptologists call the http://www.touregypt.net/hfirstin.htm - Fist Intermediate Period . We are told that his reign of possibly 94 (some Egyptologist believe 64) years was the longest in ancient Egyptian history.  He seems to have come to the throne at about the age of six, and would therefore have lived until the age of one hundred.  However, because of the onset of the First Intermediate Period, the latter part of his reign was probably ineffectual, perhaps at least somewhat due to his advanced age. Both the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt and Peter A. Clayton, have his reign lasting from 2278 until 2184 BC. 

-------------
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



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 14:52

Longest Reigning European Monarchs

Monarch Reign (Years)
Louis XIV, King of France 1643-1715 (72)
Franz Joseph I, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary 1848-1916 (68)
Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Empress of India 1837-1901 (63)
Jaime I, King of Aragn 1213-1276 (63)
Christian IV, King of Denmark 1588-1648 (60)
George III, King of Great Britain and Hanover 1760-1820 (60)
Louis XV, King of France 1715-1774 (59)
Harald I, King of Norway 872-930 (58)
Alfonso VIII, King of Castile 1158-1214 (58)
James VI (I), King of Scots (later England) 1567-1625 (58)
Wilhelmina, Queen of Netherlands 1890-1948 (58)
Henry III, King of England 1216-1272 (56)
Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain 1952- (53+)
Eric III, King of Norway 1389-1442 (53)
Friedrich III, Holy Roman Emperor 1440-1493 (53)
Haakon VII, King of Norway 1905-1957 (52)
Gorm the Old, King of Denmark 900-950 (50)
Heinrich IV, Holy Roman Emperor 1056-1106 (50)
Edward III, King of England 1327-1377 (50)



This list includes only rulers of empires and kingdoms.

Afonso I of Portugal reigned 73 years (1112-1185), but began his reign as a Count; he became the first King of Portugal in 1139, reigning with that title for 46 years.

Nikola I of Montenegro reigned 58 years (1860-1918), but began his reign as a Prince; he became the first and last King of Montenegro in 1910, reigning with that title for 8 years.

Ivan IV ("the Terrible") of Russia reigned 51 years (1533-1584), but began his reign as Grand Duke of Moscow; he became the first Tsar of Russia in 1547, reigning with that title for 37 years.



-------------
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



Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 15:09
For Persia, it was Shapur the Great who reigned from 309 to 379 AD (70 years).

-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 15:43
Semi-mythical king Arganthonios of Tartessos (in southern Spain) was proverbial for his long reign.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arganthonios - Wikipedia ): According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus" title="Herodotus" style="font-style: italic; - Herodotus , Arganthonios ruled Tartessia as king for 80 years, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/630_BC" title="630 BC" style="font-style: italic; - 630 BC to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/550_BC" title="550 BC" style="font-style: italic; - 550 BC . Much of this Tartessian dynasty is told in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend" title="Legend" style="font-style: italic; - legends , so no one knows what part is actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical" title="Historical" style="font-style: italic; - historical . He is said by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks" title="Greeks" style="font-style: italic; - Greeks to have lived for 120 years while others state that he lived a longer 150 years.

He's also supposed to have given 1.5 tons of silver to a Greek sailor named Koliaos for the construction of the wall of some Greek city (Miletus?) threatened by the Persians.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 19:06

I found another list with contestants...

we have Pepi II of Egypt, whose dates are not nailed
down that firmly but seem to have been 94 years mainly in the 23rd
century BC
...supposedly from age about 6 to about 100 as Decebal said also.

Other unclearly documented claims are those of:

 Musoma Kanjio(1856-1963) chiefship at his 8 in 1864 and held it for over 98 years, and

Minhti, king of the Burmese predecessor state of Arakan 1279-1374....earlier editions of the Guinness Book also noted almost certainly vastly inflated claims of 101 and 83 years for the 6th  Emperor Kan and 5th Emperor Ksh, Emperors of Japan.

Apart from them we have:

Raja Sawai Basavalinga I of Sundem: 1763 - 1843: 79 years +

Prince Heinrich XI of Reuss-Greiz: 17.3.1723 - 28.6.1800: 77 years 103
days (as Count until 12.5.1778)

Naik Madhoji Rao Nimbalkar of Phaltan: 7.12.1841 - 17.10.1916: 74
years 315 days

Maharaja Bhagwatsinhji of Gondal: 14.12.1869 - 10.3.1944: 74 years 87
days

Raja Bishan Chandra Jenamani of Rairakhol: 1825 - 1900: 74 years +

Pr. Georg I Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe: 13.2.1787 - 21.11.1860: 73
years 250 days (as Count until 18.4.1807)

King Alfonso Henry of Portugal: 30.4.1112 - 6.12.1185: 73 years 220
days (as Count until 1140)

Grand Duke Karl Friedrich of Baden: 12.5.1738 - 10.6.1811: 73 years 29
days (as Margrave until 25.7.1806)

King Louis XIV of France: 14.5.1643 - 1.9.1715: 72 years 110 days

Prince John II of Liechtenstein: 12.11.1858 - 11.2.1929: 70 years 91
days

Grand Duke Carl August of Saxe-Weimar und Eisenach: 28.5.1758 -
14.6.1828: 70 yrs 17 days (as Duke until 21.4.1815)

Maharaja Jagatjit Singh of Kapurthla: 1877 - 1948: 70 years +

Honourable mentions:

King Louis II of Etruria: reigned 27.5.1803 - 10.2.1807; died
16.4.1883: 79 yrs 324 days later

Duke Bernard II of Saxe-Meiningen: reigned 24.12.1803 - 20.9.1866;
died 3.12.1882: 78 years 344 days later

King Michael of Romania: reigned 20.7.1927 - 8.6.1930 & 6.9.1940 -
30.12.1947; living 7.1.2002: 74 years 171 days later

Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands: reigned 23.11.1890 - 4.9.1948;
died 28.11.1962: 72 years 5 days later

Emperor Bao Dai of Annam: reigned 8.1.1926 - Aug 1945; died 31.7.1997:
71 years 204 days later

Queen Isabella II of Spain: reigned 29.9.1833 - 30.9.1868; died
9.4.1904: 70 years 193 days later



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.


Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 19:43

For Mexico, Porfirio Diaz. He ruled the country as President over 35 years.
None of the 10 aztec emperors reigned that long.

-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 21:16

Originally posted by Decebal

Pharaoh Pepi II reigned for a whopping 94 years! I believe he was in the 5th or 6th dynasty...

 

Hardly believeable considering in those time life expectancy wasn't higher than 35 years.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 21:18

Originally posted by Maju

Semi-mythical king Arganthonios of Tartessos (in southern Spain) was proverbial for his long reign.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arganthonios - Wikipedia ): According to Herodotus, Arganthonios ruled Tartessia as king for 80 years, from 630 BC to 550 BC. Much of this Tartessian dynasty is told in legends, so no one knows what part is actually historical. He is said by the Greeks to have lived for 120 years while others state that he lived a longer 150 years.

He's also supposed to have given 1.5 tons of silver to a Greek sailor named Koliaos for the construction of the wall of some Greek city (Miletus?) threatened by the Persians.

 

LOL, what a nonsense if you tell me. Typical exaggeration of the ancient time.



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 22:31
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by Decebal

Pharaoh Pepi II reigned for a whopping 94 years! I believe he was in the 5th or 6th dynasty...

 

Hardly believeable considering in those time life expectancy wasn't higher than 35 years.



How do you know? It's clear that while life expectancy has improved overall since the Middle Ages some of the longest living people in the world are rural people with no or almost no medical care, so you shouldn't assume things so lightly. And things could be better in earlier times, we just don't have enough data to judge.

Also one thing is life expentacy, which may have improved and another thing is the maximum life span which hasn't changed. Maybe more much people celebrate their 80th birthday nowadays but the ones that celebrate their 100th are about the same (in proportion).



-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 01:01
A lot of people seem to misunderstand what life expentancy means. When a historian says that the life expectancy of a time period is 35, it does not mean that nobody lived past the age of 35. It only means that many people died young. Many babies also died, and that brought life expectancy, which is an average, down. It would have been entirely possible for an ancient Egyptian man to have lived until he was 100.

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 01:46
And Mithirades Eupator of Pontus ruled for 69 years.

-------------


Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 03:48
What about the longest reign of a dynasty? For example it is said that Ottomans reigned for 623 years, but I don't know if this is the longest...

-------------
[IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg">


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 05:26

Lets not forget Queen Mab. She ruled part of Britain from at least the first millenia BCE up to the middle ages. And being as one day in Elfhame is one year in the rest of the world. We have to times her reign by 365.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 05:43
I think the Capeting dinasty (987-1848 with some interruption) is the first. At least in Europe.


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 05:44
Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by Decebal

Pharaoh Pepi II reigned for a whopping 94 years! I believe he was in the 5th or 6th dynasty...

 

Hardly believeable considering in those time life expectancy wasn't higher than 35 years.



How do you know? It's clear that while life expectancy has improved overall since the Middle Ages some of the longest living people in the world are rural people with no or almost no medical care, so you shouldn't assume things so lightly. And things could be better in earlier times, we just don't have enough data to judge.

Also one thing is life expentacy, which may have improved and another thing is the maximum life span which hasn't changed. Maybe more much people celebrate their 80th birthday nowadays but the ones that celebrate their 100th are about the same (in proportion).

 

 According to old people life were so much better in the past, the sky bluer, and the food cheaper and people live longer all that is just plain nonsense. In reality, people suffer from chronic malnutrition, were shorter, had a shorter life, even with ridiculous purchasing power. In truth as we advance the life expectancy keep increasing, some believe one day some human will be as old as 200 year old.

 

Actually dude are you familiar with the word science. By analysing the bones of people in ancient egypt you can actually tell if they were malnourished or not. in reality the people didn't quite died of hunger but more of malnutrition and that even the most wealthy and most have bad hygiene and would died of water-borne diseases as well tuberculosis. This was because those people have little understanding of how a diet work and how diseases are transmitted. For instance the longest living pharoahs all have tno teeth  at a very early age of 30. In ancient egyppt a 30 year old could pretty much be similar to a 60 year old nowadays.

 

Below is the age pyramid of the ancient egyptian, you'll notice only an extreme few made it to 70-80. 100 year old people would be like a very rare phenomenon. That's why I'm very sceptical that any king would live to 70 plus in such an early age.

 

 Modern pyramid

Age pyramid



-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 07:39
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by Maju

 
It's clear that while life expectancy has improved overall since the Middle Ages some of the longest living people in the world are rural people with no or almost no medical care, so you shouldn't assume things so lightly. And things could be better in earlier times, we just don't have enough data to judge.

Also one thing is life expentacy, which may have improved and another thing is the maximum life span which hasn't changed. Maybe more much people celebrate their 80th birthday nowadays but the ones that celebrate their 100th are about the same (in proportion).

In truth as we advance the life expectancy keep increasing, some believe one day some human will be as old as 200 year old.

You're missing Maju's point. You could have a 200-year-old human at a time when life expectancy was 18. Or life expectancy could be 90 and no-one live longer that 100.

Life expectancy is affected by medical and hygienic advances and the like. Maximum life span is largely genetic, it's unaffected by evolution (since living longer - past a certain age - doesn't increase the number of children), and so far we haven't done any serious genetic engineering in humans.

Actually dude are you familiar with the word science.

Maju appears to be. You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept.



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 07:50

 

well i think living to 96 is not that weird and he was king of egypt  so you can consider that the 0.001% of that population life expectancy that time.

and Ramisses( spelling ) i think ruled for 60 years or so.

which is a good excuse for him to be considered God or something.

it will be weird when you go to some stories talking about someone rules for 20,000 years

i think that was the yellow king of china or something.

 



-------------


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 08:33

Originally posted by kotumeyil

What about the longest reign of a dynasty? For example it is said that Ottomans reigned for 623 years, but I don't know if this is the longest...

I had read once Zhou Dynasty of China (1122 BC - 256 BC) was the longest.



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 09:12
Originally posted by Aeolus

Originally posted by kotumeyil

What about the longest reign of a dynasty? For example it is said that Ottomans reigned for 623 years, but I don't know if this is the longest...

I had read once Zhou Dynasty of China (1122 BC - 256 BC) was the longest.

No, actually the longest ruling dynasty in the world, which continues to this day, is the Yamato dynasty of Japan. Although a precise starting date hasn't been establshed, tradition places the first emperor of the Yamato dynasty at 660BC.



-------------
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



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 20:15

You're missing Maju's point. You could have a 200-year-old human at a time when life expectancy was 18. Or life expectancy could be 90 and no-one live longer that 100.

Life expectancy is affected by medical and hygienic advances and the like. Maximum life span is largely genetic, it's unaffected by evolution (since living longer - past a certain age - doesn't increase the number of children), and so far we haven't done any serious genetic engineering in humans

 No it is you that is not getting my point. If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme would not exceed 60 years old (although the more primitive you are the greater the variance). Our age is partly determine by our genetics but our environment mosty determine how fast we die. Perhaps many of us have the potential to live perhaps 300 years in the best possible environment, but without the appropriate technology such as vaccination, proper diet and medication and in the future gene therapy you will die fast. The extreme are those who had exceptional genetics but still the limit put upon them by the environment will cut this life considerably. With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable. if you look at the chart, no one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt, and they certainly sampled a rather large number of bones and mostly the wealthiest. that's why if someone tell me that a Pharaoh reigned for more than 70 years, i would automatically dismissed such a statement as improbable, freaks exists but you don't bet on freaks, as simple as that. that the scientific approach. However you need to verify the statement, by analysing the specimen scientifically and perhaps looking at historical data to back such an extreme specimen (not shown on the chart). If you don't find such evidence, it would be more logical to deny that any king in such an early age lived that old rather than to accept.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 20:24
Originally posted by azimuth

 

well i think living to 96 is not that weird and he was king of egypt  so you can consider that the 0.001% of that population life expectancy that time.

and Ramisses( spelling ) i think ruled for 60 years or so.

which is a good excuse for him to be considered God or something.

it will be weird when you go to some stories talking about someone rules for 20,000 years

i think that was the yellow king of china or something.

 

 

Rameses II rule for 66 years  perhaps 65 years  (1278 to 1212 B.C), to be taken with a pint of salt. Pharaohs were masters of propaganda, they did a lot of thing to be an outstanding, better than their predecessors. It was a world of proganda .  Although test reveal a 90 year old longevity, which was considered as extremely rare for the time. He may have been a freak in reality. But I do not accept the test done on the ramses as proof enough, I'm very sceptical about the method use.



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 20:43
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme would not exceed 60 years old (although the more primitive you are the greater the variance). Our age is partly determine by our genetics but our environment mosty determine how fast we die. Perhaps many of us have the potential to live perhaps 300 years in the best possible environment, but without the appropriate technology such as vaccination, proper diet and medication and in the future gene therapy you will die fast. The extreme are those who had exceptional genetics but still the limit put upon them by the environment will cut this life considerably. With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable. if you look at the chart, no one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt, and they certainly sampled a rather large number of bones and mostly the wealthiest. that's why if someone tell me that a Pharaoh reigned for more than 70 years, i would automatically dismissed such a statement as improbable, freaks exists but you don't bet on freaks, as simple as that. that the scientific approach. However you need to verify the statement, by analysing the specimen scientifically and perhaps looking at historical data to back such an extreme specimen (not shown on the chart). If you don't find such evidence, it would be more logical to deny that any king in such an early age lived that old rather than to accept.



That's not that way. If you take the demographic data from Niger for instance, you will notice that while life expectancy is around 40-50 years, there are some that reach at least 90. And when you take the data of a long-living developed country like Spain, where the life expectancy is of around 80, there are still only a few that reach 90 or more. We haven't expanded the maximum duration of life of people... we just have reduced the risks of early death. Maybe the future brings somethig different but, for what I know of the reasons of death, typical of sexual (normally pluriceluar) species, it's going to be truly difficult to defeat death. But anyhow that's another discussion.



-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 21:15
Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme would not exceed 60 years old (although the more primitive you are the greater the variance). Our age is partly determine by our genetics but our environment mosty determine how fast we die. Perhaps many of us have the potential to live perhaps 300 years in the best possible environment, but without the appropriate technology such as vaccination, proper diet and medication and in the future gene therapy you will die fast. The extreme are those who had exceptional genetics but still the limit put upon them by the environment will cut this life considerably. With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable. if you look at the chart, no one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt, and they certainly sampled a rather large number of bones and mostly the wealthiest. that's why if someone tell me that a Pharaoh reigned for more than 70 years, i would automatically dismissed such a statement as improbable, freaks exists but you don't bet on freaks, as simple as that. that the scientific approach. However you need to verify the statement, by analysing the specimen scientifically and perhaps looking at historical data to back such an extreme specimen (not shown on the chart). If you don't find such evidence, it would be more logical to deny that any king in such an early age lived that old rather than to accept.



That's not that way. If you take the demographic data from Niger for instance, you will notice that while life expectancy is around 40-50 years, there are some that reach at least 90. And when you take the data of a long-living developed country like Spain, where the life expectancy is of around 80, there are still only a few that reach 90 or more. We haven't expanded the maximum duration of life of people... we just have reduced the risks of early death. Maybe the future brings somethig different but, for what I know of the reasons of death, typical of sexual (normally pluriceluar) species, it's going to be truly difficult to defeat death. But anyhow that's another discussion.

 

nonsense, prove it Sir. Show me the age population distribution of Niger and Spain. if you don't I will.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 21:20

 

 niger

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=NG&out=s&ymax=300 - http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=NG&out= s&ymax=300

 

 

 Spain

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=SP&out=s&ymax=300 - http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=SP&out= s&ymax=300

 

 I hope you can analyse the data. The data are crude but you can clearly notice the proportion of the upper extreme.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 21:28

This prove my point as time and technology progresses, the extremes are push further and further. My theory than human will reach 200 years (or perhaps 300 gene therapy excluded) is not so farfetched,a nd back by many experts in the field.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=FR&out=s&ymax=300 - http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=FR&out= s&ymax=300



-------------


Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 21:31
For the twentieth century, I think the record goes to King Sobhuza II of Swaziland, 1899-1982.  However, he was only six months old when crowned, so Labotsibeni, his grandmother, ruled in his name until he was twenty-two.

Cyrus, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Shapur II crowned before he was born?  Edward Gibbon claimed that for the coronation ceremony, the Magi displayed the pregnant queen mother on a bed in the throne room, and they placed the crown on her stomach.

In the case of Pepi II, I believe the Old Kingdom ended with him because he outlived all the other men of the VI dynasty; a short-lived queen named Nitocris succeeded him.

As for the longest-lived monarch alive today, I'd like to nominate Bhumibol Adulyadej Rama IX; he has been in charge of Thailand since 1946.


-------------
Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2005 at 21:35
How many celebrate their 110th birthday? Statistically no one in either place. And, while in Niger the life expectancy is extremely low, surely much lower than in Ancient Tartessos or Egypt, at least in peacetime, still a few reach their 80s and, we assume their 90s and even maybe their 100s... not all die at their 40s suddenly!

-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 01:10

How many celebrate their 110th birthday? Statistically no one in either place. And, while in Niger the life expectancy is extremely low, surely much lower than in Ancient Tartessos or Egypt, at least in peacetime, still a few reach their 80s and, we assume their 90s and even maybe their 100s... not all die at their 40s suddenly

 Life expectancy in Niger is 42, way higher than in ancient egypt (check my pyramid for ancient egypt would be about 30 in ancient Egypt). How many reach 110 th, certainly much more in Spain than it would be in Niger and that speaking in proportion (Spain has 4 time more people than niger,  4 folds more in Spain mean equality with Niger but I'll bet my head that it would something in the order of 8 folds or more)



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 01:12

 Your signature isn't that the one of the Israeli walls. I've seen a thread on that in another forum



-------------


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 02:23

 

So what is your Point or do you want to prove Quetzalcoatl?

that there were no Egyptian Pharaoh called Pepi II  lived to 100 years of age?

and what makes your "statistics" about people lived in 2000 BC accurate enough to make you think its "Hardly believeable" someone like Pepi II will live to 100 years old?

 

 

 



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 04:34
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 Your signature isn't that the one of the Israeli walls. I've seen a thread on that in another forum



Yeap. It's like the Berlin wall falling but just in project... so many walls have been arisen since 1991!


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 08:03
I thought I would make an honourable mention for the Persian King Kosrau I, who was (so far as I know) the only monarch crowned whilst still in the uterus. Supposedly a soothsayer guaranteed the child would be a boy, lucky for him it was.

Anyway individuals could still be expected to live to a very ancient age. In the same time period we see many of the most famous Hellenic philosophers and humanists surviving until their 70s and 80s. As ruler of one of the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the time Pepi could expect the very highest in medical care available, living comfortably in one of the most benign existences on the planet.


-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 20:41

As ruler of one of the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the time Pepi could expect the very highest in medical care available, living comfortably in one of the most benign existences on the planet.

 The medical care was more likely to harm them than save them.



-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 02:18
I would understand that if you would talk about someone else, but Egyptian Medicine was the best of it's time then.

-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 02:24
In the case of medieval methods I would agree with you, sadly the ignorant church continually advised using leeches when it would most likely kill the person. Yet ancient Egyptian medicine was quite advanced. Much of it had only a mythical value and was little better than a placebo, but it was still able to accurately predict the gender of a child, relieve asthma and have some affect on the virulent diseases the humid climate could induce.

-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 02:47

 

 This medicine had an effect in reducing stress or act like a mild pain killer or anti-biotics but overhall it was more about luck.

About leeches, what did the medieval people use it for. Do you know leeches have real medical application. leeches produce an anti-coagulant that improve circulation. Leeches have been used to restore blood circulation into a amputated body part that has beenreattached also used to treat  skin grafts.

 

http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/news/519818/main.html - http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/news/519818/main.html



-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 02:55
Leeches CAN be beneficial and I don't deny this for a second. The problem occurs when application of leeches is done when this is the last thing the patient needs. The principle behind applying leeches lay in a rather warped church interpretation of the teachings of Galen, who developed the theory of the bodily harmony being regulated by 4 humours. When a person was sick, the church concluded, it was because of a glut of one of the humours. The only way to relieve this was to bleed the excess humour out of the person through leeches.

In certain instances leeches are beneficial, still used today in the right cases. But in medieval times the use of leeches was taken too far, often having a counter-productive effect by draining a person of preciously needed blood. It was still practiced until relatively recently, in the 18th century we see Louis XV having leeches applied to him and nearly killing him as a result. The fact he survived such a treatment surprises me personally.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 04:27

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme would not exceed 60 years old

[/QUOTE

Why not? Incidentally, life expectancy is not the mean age at death.

With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable.

Why not? Incidentally, life expectancy is not the mean age at death.

With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable.

How are you calculating the variance? What defines 'too high'?

Improbable it of course is. Deliberately so. But possible. Life expectancy is a mathematical calculation based on mortality tables. Maximum life span isn't.

The two are not really comparable constructs.

[QUOTE]

if you look at the chart, no one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt,

'No one'? How do you prove that?



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 14:05
He has a time machine. I believe that no matter small the life expectancy is, there still can be exceptions.. so what if he was the one of the million and lifed for 90 years?


-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2005 at 05:56
Well Egypt has a LONG history. Literally there must have been hundreds upon hundreds of Pharaohs over the course of the 1st dynasty until Cleopatra gave an asp a bite of her. Is it really so improbable that in over 3000 years of history one especially distinguished man should survive until 100 years of age? Perhaps the life of this man who nearly tripled the life expectancy of his typical subject was an important influence on the Egyptians crediting their rulers with god status.

-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 03:26

'No one'? How do you prove that?

 

 It is mathematical.



-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 09:18
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

'No one'? How do you prove that?

 
 It is mathematical.



Mathematics can't prove or disprove an empirical statement. However if you think you have a mathematical proof, let's have it.

You wrote previously, and i responded:


With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable.


How are you calculating the variance? What defines 'too high'?



Can you answer those questions? Don't be put off by assuming I don't understand the maths involved, the odds are I will.


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 20:48

Can you answer those questions? Don't be put off by assuming I don't understand the maths involved, the odds are I will.

 

 Good if you understand the maths behind you can answer it just by looking at the pyramids, so why asking me.  Look at the pyramids, the sample is not widely spread. More than 80% of the scores are within 1 standard deviation, an almost 100% within 2 standard deviation. Mathematically speaking, 100 year old peeps were a miracle in ancient egypt, or at least improbable although I never said zero. That's why I said it is very unlikely to have a person living that old.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2005 at 20:55

Mathematics can't prove or disprove an empirical statement. However if you think you have a mathematical proof, let's have it.

 

 It is statistical and therefore mathematical as well.



-------------


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 00:36
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Can you answer those questions? Don't be put off by assuming I don't understand the maths involved, the odds are I will.



Good if you understand the maths behind you can answer it just by looking at the pyramids, so why asking me. Look at the pyramids, the sample is not widely spread. More than 80% of the scores are within 1 standard deviation, an almost 100% within 2 standard deviation. Mathematically speaking, 100 year old peeps were a miracle in ancient egypt, or at least improbable although I never said zero. That's why I said it is very unlikely to have a person living that old.



Well, you did say 'no one', so that pretty much implies 0. There's a great difference between improbable and impossible you know.

Anyway, I would argue that in Egypt, you had practically 2 societies: the peasants, which constituted 99% of the population, which were malnourished and overworked, and who therefore barely lived to be 40. Then you had the priests and the aristocrats, who had pretty good living conditions, good food and did not have to break their backs doing physical labor. It's like people from 2 different worlds! I'm leaving the military out of the discussion, as there's other factors there acting on the life expectancy. The pyramid for Egpyt as a whole would be very similar to the peasants one, since they are the great majority. I wonder what the pyramid for the aristocrats and clergy would look like? Don't you agree that for the aristocrat pyramid there might be a small percentage of people who live in their 90's?

A 100 year old peasant might be a miracle, but a 100 years old aristocrat is not that unlikely.

-------------
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



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 01:39

Then you had the priests and the aristocrats, who had pretty good living conditions, good food

  Apparently this statement seems to be correct on the surface but that is just apparent, why?? Having a lot of food doesn't mean you are well nourish, eating too much food is a form of malnutrition. Infact the food weren't that good, the elite had a lot of food but bad food mostly. For example the pharaohs had their teeth worn out by the consumption of bread full of tiny peebles.. The ancient egyptians hardly understand the concept behind a diet (which a rather modern concept which come by with science). So the elites suffered of malnutrition just like the poor if not worst. It can be argued who of the poor or the elite has the best diet. So don't confused the amount of food available as being an indicator for being well nourished.

  Further do you think the elites actually had better hygienes than the poor. Proper hygiene is a rather modern concepts too. You know the barbarians had better hygienes than the romans, Romans cities were filthy and the Gauls sacking romes would die of diseases (whereas barbarian villages were amasingly clean with proper waste disposal). When you argue you should not think as it is now but as it was. Nowadays the better educated wealthy people actually behave more like the poor of the past (with balance diet, restricting the amount of food they eat) and whereas the poor behaves like the elites of the past eating way too much food thus suffering from diseases associated with over-nutrition.



-------------


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 03:11

We do in fact have a contemporary inscription of Pepi II which reveals that he was living in the year after the thirty-first cattle count of his reign.   A cattle count took place on the first year of the reigning king and every other year afterward, which thus indicates that at least he was still reigning in his 64th year.  Another interesting thing is that he was not the only centenarian of the time.  We also know of a certain Pepiankh who declared that he reached the age of 100.  There are other examples of Egyptian longevity here:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/oldage.htm - http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/oldage.htm



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 03:19
They were less stressed and therefore they lived longer. 

-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 04:04
Originally posted by Maju

They were less stressed and therefore they lived longer. 


Darn right, if I sat on a throne all my life and didn't even have to go to the effort of wiping my own backside (fact of life for the Pharaohs) you can be sure as anything I wouldn't be suffering a premature death from stress or overwork!

With regard to food there are some valid points. But when you are wealthier it must be kept in mind that a far greater variety of foodstuffs is at your disposal. The average peasant would spend day after day most of their life eating the same grain based produce and very rarely would enjoy fruits, meats, fish etc. Such hard to produce luxuries were typically the preserve of the wealthy. As is to be expected, a diet which is limited to grainstuffs is unhealthy. The body needs a variety of minerals, vitamins etc and access to proteins and fats which crusty bread simply doesn't have. The greater variety in diet of the wealthy would surely have been a help in living longer. Not to mention the Pharaoh himself would never have been expected to put up with dirty water, undisposed of sewage, a dirty house etc.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 04:04
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Mathematics can't prove or disprove an empirical statement. However if you think you have a mathematical proof, let's have it.

 

 It is statistical and therefore mathematical as well.

Obviously, but what is it? Otherwise it could well be doubted that you know what you are talking about, couldn't it?

You overlooked my other question again, too.

Don't worry, I can handle statistical analysis.

 

 

 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 04:12
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Can you answer those questions? Don't be put off by assuming I don't understand the maths involved, the odds are I will.

 

 Good if you understand the maths behind you can answer it just by looking at the pyramids, so why asking me.  

It's because I understand the maths that I don't look at the pyramid. All mortality tables assume that the initial population goes to zero at some point, usually around 108-110. But people live longer than that.

Look at the pyramids, the sample is not widely spread. More than 80% of the scores are within 1 standard deviation, an almost 100% within 2 standard deviation. Mathematically speaking, 100 year old peeps were a miracle in ancient egypt, or at least improbable although I never said zero. That's why I said it is very unlikely to have a person living that old.

You said zero, not almost zero. You also said impossible, not very unlikely.  Noone is suggesting it was likely.

The analysis you appear to be using is applicable to normal distributions - bell curves if you like - which mortality isn't. But if it were the calculation would depend on the assumption that the tails of the curve go to infinity, so there would always be the possibility of someone living to any age (and in fact having a minus age at death, which somewhat pours cold water on the whole thing).

I asked how you were calculating the variance (and therefore the standard deviation). Just asserting what you think it is isn't telling me how you calculated it.

 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 04:15

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Maju

They were less stressed and therefore they lived longer. 


Darn right, if I sat on a throne all my life and didn't even have to go to the effort of wiping my own backside (fact of life for the Pharaohs) you can be sure as anything I wouldn't be suffering a premature death from stress or overwork!

Of course there might be the occasional assassination to worry about



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 09:11
The average life expectancy may have been 18, but that's for a large part because there was a very high infant mortality. Once someone survived the first 10 years of his life, he was likely to make it at least until 40 years or so.

Apart from that, I think pharoahs had a much higher life expectancy than the average Egyptian.


-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 14:26
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

The average life expectancy may have been 18, but that's for a large part because there was a very high infant mortality. Once someone survived the first 10 years of his life, he was likely to make it at least until 40 years or so.


Well, I don't think that can be true. If Roman slaves, subject to the most cruel of explotation, had a life expectancy of about 20, any other group should have a much higher life expectancy... it might be as low as 40, I can't say for sure, but I believe that any prosperous ancient time's civilization, not ravaged by famine, epidemics or war, should have even greater life expectancy figures (50, maybe 60). Ancient Egypt was far more prosperous than modern Niger.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 16:00
Getting back to the longest reigns

On the western front, let us not forget

Fidel Castro, Cuba.
Age 77. In power since 1959.


The worlds longest-reigning dictator, Castro took advantage of the worlds preoccupation with the war in Iraq last spring to carry out his biggest roundup of nonviolent dissidents in more than a decade. He arrested 75 human-rights activists, journalists and academics, sentencing them to prison for an average of 19 years. Cuba remains a one-party state. The courts are controlled by the executive branchthat is, Castro.

Now, here's a man who I wish had NO LIFE EXPECTANCY AT ALL. What were those calculations again?

Morty


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 21:51

The analysis you appear to be using is applicable to normal distributions - bell curves if you like - which mortality isn't. But if it were the calculation would depend on the assumption that the tails of the curve go to infinity, so there would always be the possibility of someone living to any age (and in fact having a minus age at death, which somewhat pours cold water on the whole thing).

 

 What you expect me to spoon feed you by converting the crude pyramids into a normal distribution distribution . You are crazy mate, I have no time to do that in a historical forum.  The pyramids  act as a raw source of information from which I can very well estimate the standard deviation (itself a less accurate measure than the variance).

 

using this simple formula


where u = life expentancy, N is the number sampled.

 



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2005 at 21:58

But if it were the calculation would depend on the assumption that the tails of the curve go to infinity

 The tail goes to infinity? jesus christ what the hell you are talking about. We are talking about humans here, not gods.



-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 05:15
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

The analysis you appear to be using is applicable to normal distributions - bell curves if you like - which mortality isn't. But if it were the calculation would depend on the assumption that the tails of the curve go to infinity, so there would always be the possibility of someone living to any age (and in fact having a minus age at death, which somewhat pours cold water on the whole thing).

 

 What you expect me to spoon feed you by converting the crude pyramids into a normal distribution distribution . You are crazy mate, I have no time to do that in a historical forum.  The pyramids  act as a raw source of information from which I can very well estimate the standard deviation (itself a less accurate measure than the variance).

 

using this simple formula


where u = life expentancy, N is the number sampled.

But as I pointed out, life expectancy is not the mean age at death, and anyway that formula only applies to normal distributions, which mortality is definitely not. A pyramid is hardly a normal distribution.

Moreover, even if the technique were valid here, if you take any sample, and categorise the results, the extreme (indeed any rare) values of the underlying population will not be represented. If a sample category contains no elements, that does not prove that the category is not represented in the general population.

And with regard to this being a historical forum, you're the one who introduced the mathematical concepts, not me.

 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 05:17
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

But if it were the calculation would depend on the assumption that the tails of the curve go to infinity

 The tail goes to infinity?

Well, if it doesn't the maths you are using don't apply.



Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 05:44
go statistics

-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 07:01
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Maju

They were less stressed and therefore they lived longer. 


Darn right, if I sat on a throne all my life and didn't even have to go to the effort of wiping my own backside (fact of life for the Pharaohs) you can be sure as anything I wouldn't be suffering a premature death from stress or overwork!

Of course there might be the occasional assassination to worry about

 

You really know how to take all the fun out of being Pharaoh, don't you!.



-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 07:03

Originally posted by I/eye

go statistics

You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are dealing with people, and special cases of people. Statistics shouldn't be generically applied to someone like the Pharaoh.



-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2005 at 18:24
Also, as another mention we should add Basil II of Byzantium. His reign stretched from being crowned co-emperor in 961 until his death in 1025, a whopping 64 years.

-------------


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 07-May-2017 at 12:08
Ramses the Second =66 years on throne!Queen Elisabeth will soon, I hope,brake this record!


Posted By: tzar
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2017 at 14:46

Probably Elisabeth will win, but she has not real "governing rights". It is easy to say only "yes" and "no" and determines the fate of several dogs..., but if she was in charge of taking real decisions I doubt she would be still on throne ... on 91 years .. Confused


-------------
Everybody listen only this which understands.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com