>roman republic and empire treated as two distinct units cuz otherwise it would disprove the theory >"""Arab empire""" conflating all the different caliphates >ottoman rise in 1320 for no reason >ottoman fall in 1570 for no reason >no mongols >no china
It's almost as if boiling down all the complexities and nuances of the entirety of recorded human existence into a bite-sized and easy to understand """concept""" is an inherently moronic idea.
republic and empire treated as two distinct units cuz otherwise it would disprove the theory
that's not even the dumbest part, he ends the roman empire at fricking 180 AD.
not to mention he deems the arab empires powerful enough to be notable but the byzantines who cucked them for 800 years get no mention at all, and they were undoubtably the single most powerful state entity in europe on multiple occasions
1 year ago
Anonymous
On closer inspection I think every single one of those items is basically arbitrary BS
1 year ago
Anonymous
agreed, and i would refer to
>roman republic and empire treated as two distinct units cuz otherwise it would disprove the theory >"""Arab empire""" conflating all the different caliphates >ottoman rise in 1320 for no reason >ottoman fall in 1570 for no reason >no mongols >no china
It's almost as if boiling down all the complexities and nuances of the entirety of recorded human existence into a bite-sized and easy to understand """concept""" is an inherently moronic idea.
>It's almost as if boiling down all the complexities and nuances of the entirety of recorded human existence into a bite-sized and easy to understand """concept""" is an inherently moronic idea.
as it deserves repetition.
>tfw most kino part of roman history not accounted for in his imaginary numbers
feelsbadman
1 year ago
Anonymous
>kino > uneducated chud detected
1 year ago
Anonymous
if you think the remaining christian existence of the Roman Empire/Western Roman Empire isn't cinematic enough, then nothing really is, you fake IQfygay
Tang dynasty: 289 years
Song dynasty: 309 years
Ming dynasty: 276 years
Qing dynasty: 267 years
Tokugawa shogunate: 268 years
Safavid empire: 235 years
Yep I'm thinking he's right
The Zhou can be split into different periods like the Han and each period ends up being around 200-400 years of effective rule like everything else here.
The Russian empire did not start in 1547 it was technically founded by Peter but we can start counting from the Romanovs which puts it closer to 300. Most Roman dynasties after the dominate (isaurian, Macedonian etc) are around 200-300. The Ottomans are the only true outlier
Not really, Russia united and started expanding eastwards into foreign lands after Ivan the Terrible, thereby constituting, what might be called an "empire". If you want to start the empire with Peter (which, given the immense social changes he endorsed, is a valid point), you have to concede, that there was a previous empire, which only lasted ~140 y. Also, most Byzantine Dynasties lasted only ~100 y (Justinians (6th Century), Heraclians (7th Century), Isaurians (8th Century). The Macedonians are more the exceptions than the rule and even their rule lasted only for 189 y.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I consider the Romanovs a single dynasty state which seems the most reasonable to me.
And even when considering all of this, at what point does this discussion become irrelevant anyway? The average empire lasts for ~200-400 y (except the failed ones, I guess), so what? What predictive capabilities does this "realization" have? That if an empire survives the first 50 or so years, then it's probably going to last another 150-350 years. That's not exactly precise or profound. That's just describing statistics. All empires die eventually, everyone knows that, and with time the chance of invasion, natural catastrophes, social unrest etc. increases, so what's the big point? Of course there is no empire out there, which remained a superpower forever and empires also don't tend to die right after the original conquerors consolidated power, so statistically speaking the 200-400 y-figure would just seem logical anyway, as it probably covers the bulk of the bell curve of this distribution.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Data is generally always useful, so if it can be statistically shown empire lifespans are distributed like this, it is an important insight >That if an empire survives the first 50 or so years, then it's probably going to last another 150-350 years.
If it can be proven there is a sort of bimodal survivorship that's quite significant. You can't just take such a statement for granted
1 year ago
Anonymous
Now, as I mentioned before, this stuff seems quite obvious. If you have a strong ruling class, which can consolidate its power, then the ruling class will allow the empire to persist for a longer period of time. However, eventually the combination of degeneration of the ruling class and the increasing statistical likelyhood of outside threats will lead to the empire's downfall. It's just the classical cycle theory. Conqueror conquers old dynasty and injects the state with new vital blood. Over the course of generation, the conquerors dynasty will settle, assimilate and eventually refuse to rule properly, while the bureaucracy manages to keep the empire alive until an internal or external shock eventually sends the entire house of cards tumbling down until the cycle starts anew with a new conqueror.
1 year ago
Anonymous
But that's just a theory. It becomes more credible if you have numerical data to back it up. You cannot just say, well it's obvious this and that, having numbers is what makes things meaningful, it's what separates the European science from the arts that every culture had.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Statistical probabilities are not going to help you with that, because they just vaguely describe reality, but do not explain it. You would probably have to go and read ungodly amounts of literature on how and why these states rise and fall, but there is already a lot of literature on that (Toynbee for instance). Numbers will probably not get you very far in this case.
1 year ago
Anonymous
And of course there are the elements of chance aswell, which you can't control for. The Japanese Empire for instance only lasted for ~80 y, because the Americans bombed the country to shreds in '45. Then you have periods like the Heian Period, which lasted for 400 y, the Kamakura Period lasted for 150 y etc. Again, I mentioned the Byzantine dynasties, also the Mongol Empires, a lot of Indian and Persian empires also didn't last for very long ... This rough approximation seems to work best with relatively homogenous cultural spaces, with relative isolation from outside forces and in old established cultures (like China), where you can literally see the end of the dynasty every 300 y.
Something that actually is interesting to me is that the fathers of our last intellectual age all lived around the same time. Confucius, Buddha, Plato, were all nearly contemporary
this is one of the funniest and stupidest of all the historical cycle theories
>spain's rise is in 1500 cuz it just is
>spain's fall is in 1750 cuz it just is
good stuff
>roman republic and empire treated as two distinct units cuz otherwise it would disprove the theory
>"""Arab empire""" conflating all the different caliphates
>ottoman rise in 1320 for no reason
>ottoman fall in 1570 for no reason
>no mongols
>no china
It's almost as if boiling down all the complexities and nuances of the entirety of recorded human existence into a bite-sized and easy to understand """concept""" is an inherently moronic idea.
republic and empire treated as two distinct units cuz otherwise it would disprove the theory
that's not even the dumbest part, he ends the roman empire at fricking 180 AD.
not to mention he deems the arab empires powerful enough to be notable but the byzantines who cucked them for 800 years get no mention at all, and they were undoubtably the single most powerful state entity in europe on multiple occasions
On closer inspection I think every single one of those items is basically arbitrary BS
agreed, and i would refer to
>It's almost as if boiling down all the complexities and nuances of the entirety of recorded human existence into a bite-sized and easy to understand """concept""" is an inherently moronic idea.
as it deserves repetition.
If you break up the Roman empire into principate and dominate you get roughly 250-300 years each
That's fair, dabs on Coomodus
>tfw most kino part of roman history not accounted for in his imaginary numbers
feelsbadman
>kino
> uneducated chud detected
if you think the remaining christian existence of the Roman Empire/Western Roman Empire isn't cinematic enough, then nothing really is, you fake IQfygay
Are you frickin daft?
HRE i kneel
Meanwhile, the Venetian Republic lasted for nearly a thousand years.
>Meanwhile, the Venetian Republic lasted for nearly a thousand years.
But wasn't imperial
fact, anglos molding
Bullshit
Tang dynasty: 289 years
Song dynasty: 309 years
Ming dynasty: 276 years
Qing dynasty: 267 years
Tokugawa shogunate: 268 years
Safavid empire: 235 years
Yep I'm thinking he's right
>doesn’t include Zhou
The Zhou can be split into different periods like the Han and each period ends up being around 200-400 years of effective rule like everything else here.
The Russian empire did not start in 1547 it was technically founded by Peter but we can start counting from the Romanovs which puts it closer to 300. Most Roman dynasties after the dominate (isaurian, Macedonian etc) are around 200-300. The Ottomans are the only true outlier
Not really, Russia united and started expanding eastwards into foreign lands after Ivan the Terrible, thereby constituting, what might be called an "empire". If you want to start the empire with Peter (which, given the immense social changes he endorsed, is a valid point), you have to concede, that there was a previous empire, which only lasted ~140 y. Also, most Byzantine Dynasties lasted only ~100 y (Justinians (6th Century), Heraclians (7th Century), Isaurians (8th Century). The Macedonians are more the exceptions than the rule and even their rule lasted only for 189 y.
I consider the Romanovs a single dynasty state which seems the most reasonable to me.
And even when considering all of this, at what point does this discussion become irrelevant anyway? The average empire lasts for ~200-400 y (except the failed ones, I guess), so what? What predictive capabilities does this "realization" have? That if an empire survives the first 50 or so years, then it's probably going to last another 150-350 years. That's not exactly precise or profound. That's just describing statistics. All empires die eventually, everyone knows that, and with time the chance of invasion, natural catastrophes, social unrest etc. increases, so what's the big point? Of course there is no empire out there, which remained a superpower forever and empires also don't tend to die right after the original conquerors consolidated power, so statistically speaking the 200-400 y-figure would just seem logical anyway, as it probably covers the bulk of the bell curve of this distribution.
Data is generally always useful, so if it can be statistically shown empire lifespans are distributed like this, it is an important insight
>That if an empire survives the first 50 or so years, then it's probably going to last another 150-350 years.
If it can be proven there is a sort of bimodal survivorship that's quite significant. You can't just take such a statement for granted
Now, as I mentioned before, this stuff seems quite obvious. If you have a strong ruling class, which can consolidate its power, then the ruling class will allow the empire to persist for a longer period of time. However, eventually the combination of degeneration of the ruling class and the increasing statistical likelyhood of outside threats will lead to the empire's downfall. It's just the classical cycle theory. Conqueror conquers old dynasty and injects the state with new vital blood. Over the course of generation, the conquerors dynasty will settle, assimilate and eventually refuse to rule properly, while the bureaucracy manages to keep the empire alive until an internal or external shock eventually sends the entire house of cards tumbling down until the cycle starts anew with a new conqueror.
But that's just a theory. It becomes more credible if you have numerical data to back it up. You cannot just say, well it's obvious this and that, having numbers is what makes things meaningful, it's what separates the European science from the arts that every culture had.
Statistical probabilities are not going to help you with that, because they just vaguely describe reality, but do not explain it. You would probably have to go and read ungodly amounts of literature on how and why these states rise and fall, but there is already a lot of literature on that (Toynbee for instance). Numbers will probably not get you very far in this case.
And of course there are the elements of chance aswell, which you can't control for. The Japanese Empire for instance only lasted for ~80 y, because the Americans bombed the country to shreds in '45. Then you have periods like the Heian Period, which lasted for 400 y, the Kamakura Period lasted for 150 y etc. Again, I mentioned the Byzantine dynasties, also the Mongol Empires, a lot of Indian and Persian empires also didn't last for very long ... This rough approximation seems to work best with relatively homogenous cultural spaces, with relative isolation from outside forces and in old established cultures (like China), where you can literally see the end of the dynasty every 300 y.
Tang: 618-907 (289 y)
Song: 960-1271 (311 y)
Ming: 1368-1644 (276 y)
Qing: 1636-1912 (276 y)
Dynasties aren't empires, sperg
They are distinct states that are founded and overthrown. We can also call them the ming empire, qing empire etc.
A more realistic assessment:
Assyria: -911 - -609 (302 y)
Persia: -559 - -330 (229 y)
Greece: -336 - .146 (190y)
Roman Republic: -340 - -27 (313 y)
Roman Empire (Principate): -27 - 284 (311 y)
Roman Empire (Dominate): 284 - 476 (192 y)
Arab Empire(s): 632 - 940 (308 y)
Mamluks: 1250 - 1517 (267 y)
Ottoman Empire: 1299 - 1922 (623 y)
Spanish Empire: 1492 - 1821 (329 y)
Russian Empire: 1547 - 1916 (369 y)
British Empire: 1707 - 1960s (~260 y)
I really wanted to be the one to post that.
>Assyria (2600 BCE - 240 CE)
>Greece/Hellenism (336 - 30 BCE)
>Roman Empire (27 BCE - 1453 CE)
>Arab Caliphates (632 - 1258)
>Russian Empire (1721 - 1917)
>British Empire (1707 - )
FIFY
Something that actually is interesting to me is that the fathers of our last intellectual age all lived around the same time. Confucius, Buddha, Plato, were all nearly contemporary
Romanovs ruled since 1613, not 1682