Roman Succession

[Valmy]

For several hundred years? There are a lot of them yes.
Since year 0? You're looking at a pretty short list. China and Persia are all that immediately stand out.

Since year zero?  Like when the clock went from BC to AD?  Like when China is a large collection of warring "feudal" states and Persia is being run by Turkish horsemen?

[Darth Wagtaros]

It's a bit like the War of the Roses. Chaos and trouble and taxes, but little or no wasting of the land. The peasants wouldn't have noticed anything other than increased taxes to pay soldiers.

The crisis was hardly a civil war between noble dynasties, didn't all those German Hordes pouring across the border take any loot and kill anybody?  Certain places like North Africa, Egypt, Hispania, and Anatolia got away pretty cleanly though.

Plus wasn't the internal trade network severely fucked? Currency devaluation, degradation of the road network, and the retreat of civilization due to plagues, local governmental collapse, etc must have made a lot of areas chancy. 

[Josquius]

I doubt that a modern Iranian could make much sense of the Parthian language anymore then you or I could make sense of Mercian English.

They would have a much easier time of it then we would trying to speak ancient Brythonic, it isn't even an ancestor of English.

For several hundred years? There are a lot of them yes.
Since year 0? You're looking at a pretty short list. China and Persia are all that immediately stand out.

Since year zero?  Like when the clock went from BC to AD?  Like when China is a large collection of warring "feudal" states and Persia is being run by Turkish horsemen?

Year zero like roughly around that time, not on any particular date.
Checking up it seems China was having a bit of a civil war exactly around year 1. But still, it doesn't change anything. China was still there, the fighting was about who will rule China.
Parthian was Iranian wasn't it?

[Darth Wagtaros]

Parthia may have ruled Iran. But is present day Iran Parthian?

[garbon]

Year zero like roughly around that time, not on any particular date.

Well obviously not a particular date. Our calendar doesn't record that a year 0 existed.

[Valmy]

Checking up it seems China was having a bit of a civil war exactly around year 1. But still, it doesn't change anything. China was still there, the fighting was about who will rule China.

But in what sense?  Chinese today refer to themselves as the 'Children of the Han' yes?  Before the unification in the 3rd century are we really talking about the same place?

[Valmy]

Parthian was Iranian wasn't it?

I don't know.  We do not know that much about Parthia since pretty much all that was written down about them was done by the Romans and the by the succeeding Sassanids.

A society without a literate elite does not sound like Persia to me.

[Josquius]

I don't know.  We do not know that much about Parthia since pretty much all that was written down about them was done by the Romans and the by the succeeding Sassanids.

A society without a literate elite does not sound like Persia to me.

Yet before them you have yet more Persians (well, Greeks then Persians) and in their empire you have Persians. Parthians themselves were Iranians too.

But in what sense?  Chinese today refer to themselves as the 'Children of the Han' yes?  Before the unification in the 3rd century are we really talking about the same place?

China was unified quite a while back into BC. The three kingdoms were an interlude and IIRC all claimed to be China.

Well obviously not a particular date. Our calendar doesn't record that a year 0 existed.

Indeed, that's why I said it. I felt my meaning was obvious but I guess not- unless it was just the temptation to smart alec which brought on the statements of the obvious.

[jimmy olsen]

Checking up it seems China was having a bit of a civil war exactly around year 1. But still, it doesn't change anything. China was still there, the fighting was about who will rule China.

But in what sense?  Chinese today refer to themselves as the 'Children of the Han' yes?  Before the unification in the 3rd century are we really talking about the same place?

The Han were in power between 200bc and 200ad weren't they?

[garbon]

Indeed, that's why I said it. I felt my meaning was obvious but I guess not- unless it was just the temptation to smart alec which brought on the statements of the obvious.

You and Tim have an idiotic position so why shouldn't I?

[jimmy olsen]

Parthian was Iranian wasn't it?

I don't know.  We do not know that much about Parthia since pretty much all that was written down about them was done by the Romans and the by the succeeding Sassanids.

A society without a literate elite does not sound like Persia to me.

Wikipedia says that the Parthians are still there and the language they spoke was an Iranian one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia

[Valmy]

Wikipedia says that the Parthians are still there and the language they spoke was an Iranian one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia

I am tallking about the Parthian Empire of antiquity not the Parthian ethnic group of today.

[Valmy]

The Han were in power between 200bc and 200ad weren't they?

Oh you are right.  I wiffed on that for some reason I got my BCs and ADs mixed up on the Qin dynasty.

[PDH]

I thought the Parthians were a nomadic group coming from the north of Seleucid regions who moved in during that degenerate kingdom's decline.  Probably Scythians who came in, put their boots on the furniture, and pretended they were always there.

[Valmy]

I thought the Parthians were a nomadic group coming from the north of Seleucid regions who moved in during that degenerate kingdom's decline.  Probably Scythians who came in, put their boots on the furniture, and pretended they were always there.

Yes that is exactly who they were.