Roman Succession

[Razgovory]

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.

Let just use Old English.  It's even closer to the modern era and it's still completely unintelligible to the modern reader.  It may as well by written in Brythonic.  We can't understand either, and I doubt they can understand Parthian.

[The Minsky Moment]

The present-day EU  has about as much connection if not more to the Roman Empire, as the Islamic Republic to the Arsacid Confederacy, or the PRC to the Han polity.

[Valmy]

But anyway comparisons to China and Rome do not work because China was in a much richer agricultural area with far fewer hostile neighbors.  They could afford to fund a massive civilian beaucracy and make the military a poor relation to the civilian paper pushers, which is just a ridiculous fantasy in the world the Romans lived.  Obviously if the Romans could have done such a thing it would have been far more stable but I do not see how that could have happened.

But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Only if you put "in power" in scare quotes.  The imperial regime was plagued by regular civil wars, schisms, succession crises, and independent monarchs breaking off.  And when the imperial system finally collapsed for good, an enduring imperial structure didn't reconstitute until the Tang period, and even then not for long.  Until the Mongol period, division rather than unity was a more common experience in what is now China.

[dps]

Go back to what Raz said:  "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long.  By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means".  That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree.  Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era.  The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China;  the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.

Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US.  Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.

[The Brain]

Go back to what Raz said:  "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long.  By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means".  That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree.  Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era.  The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China;  the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.

Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US.  Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.

Sweden had a military coup in 1809.

[Malthus]

In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.

Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.

[Valmy]

In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.

Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.

Except in Britain itself you are only allowed to say how rubbish the country is.  That has to get annoying.

[alfred russel]

In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.

Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.

Their empire has totally collapsed to the point they are really no longer a major power. And the standard of civil war you are using excludes the colonial conflicts that they had.

That said, I think it is much easier for a modern state to establish stability, for a lot of reasons.

[Pat]

Go back to what Raz said:  "it's hard to find any any state with continuous government that lasts to long.  By continuous I mean, a government that isn't overthrown or conquered or otherwise altered fundamentally through violent means".  That's a pretty decent definition IMO, though others can disagree.  Given that definition, it's just silly to argue that China or Persia go back to the start of the Christian era.  The PRC only goes back to 1949 or maybe a few years earlier if you don't require them to have completely kicked the Nationalists off the mainland in order to be considered the government of China;  the Islamic Republic is even newer, and only goes back to 1979.

Going with Raz's definition, there are very few countries that have governments older than that of the US.  Leaving aside microstates like San Marino, the only ones I can think of would be Sweden and the UK.

Sweden had a military coup in 1809.

An unbloody coup that toppled the king and gave us a new constitution, yes (until the revision in the 70s the oldest in the world after the American). But the vast majority of laws remained unchanged and it is the legal revision of 1734 that is the current one in both Finland and Sweden, in the sense that this was the last major revision of laws (the previous one was under Kristoffer in 1442). Some parts of the original 1734 laws are applied even today; for example Handelsbalken (Act of Trade) of 1734 is still law in both Sweden and Finland. Byggningabalken is another law from 1734 still applied in both Sweden and Finland; it in turn stems from Magnus Erikssons laws of the 1300s.

edit: to clarify, by Raz's definition of "altered fundamentally by violent means", no such thing has occured in Sweden; there has been a continuous history of gradual change since the formation of the state shortly after the Viking era.

[Malthus]

In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.

Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.

Their empire has totally collapsed to the point they are really no longer a major power. And the standard of civil war you are using excludes the colonial conflicts that they had.

That said, I think it is much easier for a modern state to establish stability, for a lot of reasons.

Colonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. 

The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.

[Ideologue]

But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?

YES--from then till 1912.

[garbon]

In terms of world history, the British have had an impressively long run of stability - no civil war since the mid-17th century (not counting the Glorious Revolution)! Over 350 years and counting.

Dunno if any other major power has lasted as long.

Their empire has totally collapsed to the point they are really no longer a major power. And the standard of civil war you are using excludes the colonial conflicts that they had.

That said, I think it is much easier for a modern state to establish stability, for a lot of reasons.

Colonial conflicts don't enter into the picture. If having a colonial conflict affected stability, where would that leave Rome? I doubt they went a decade without one in their entire history. 

The issue here is internal stability. Britian has an impressively long run of it.

Still the collapse, as it were, of their empire hardly makes them a great choice.

[Valmy]

Que?

I said fewer.  They had one border to worry about, and no additional giant civilized hostile Empires like the Persians close by draining their strength away.  It was one bear of a border though.

[Valmy]

YES--from then till 1912.

I meant their Empire pretty much collapsed as a result of said Barbarian attacks around that period.  And last I checked following the wars against Dsungar Horde they were pretty much ok in that sphere, it was the darn Russians and Westerners who gave them crap after that.