Roman Succession

[garbon]

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.

I guess that depends on what you are calling China/Chinese.  The Northern portion of the country spent a good amount of time under non-Han rule.

[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.

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.

Certainly the Roman Empire wasn't internally stable for most of its history. But I don't know how interesting a model the UK would be consideirng they suffered a major decline during the period in question.

Also, I think you are forgetting the Jacobites.

[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.

Oh and the legal revisions of Magnus (city laws) and Kristoffer (nation-wide laws) built on the old provincial laws that date to time immemorial.

[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.

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.

The government was overthrown. Nothing more, nothing less. Meets the criteria.

[Malthus]

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

Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?

[Malthus]

Certainly the Roman Empire wasn't internally stable for most of its history. But I don't know how interesting a model the UK would be consideirng they suffered a major decline during the period in question.

Also, I think you are forgetting the Jacobites.

I'm not mentioning the Jacobites because they hardly did anything of note. A raid by a buncha highlanders? That all they got? 

Anyway, same challenge: if you don't like this example, feel free to mention another that has greater longevity.

[jimmy olsen]

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

YES--from then till 1912.

Shouldn't that be 1945?

[garbon]

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

Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?

I think the point was that they there aren't really any great contenders.  That said - I'd think going from The Empire where the sun never sets to a size of somewhere around Kansas (I think) is pretty obvious.

[alfred russel]

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

Care to mention a contender that has lasted longer?

I don't think a modern state is a good comparison, for some reasons I stated before.

But Tim seemed to be searching for a different type of succession that could have made the empire more durable. I don't think the Roman Empire avoiding civil wars but shrinking to a portion of Italy is what he was looking for.

I think in terms of maintaining a large empire for an extended period, Rome is the most successful state there has been.

[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.

Shouldn't that be 1945?

The Japanese were a civilizing influence.

[alfred russel]

I'm not mentioning the Jacobites because they hardly did anything of note. A raid by a buncha highlanders? That all they got? 

Anyway, same challenge: if you don't like this example, feel free to mention another that has greater longevity.

You are really defining stability down: first we exclude all the colonies, which are by far the largest part of the empire, and now we are also excluding scotland. 

As I mentioned, I think the most successful large empire in terms of longetivity was Rome. After that, I would give the nod to the british (say 1607-1945) or spain (1492-1810).

I don't know much about the Far East, so I'm ignoring them.

[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.

The government was overthrown. Nothing more, nothing less. Meets the criteria.

Change wasn't all that fundamental considering a lot of it was restoring old priviliges that had previously been acquired by peaceful means and then revoked (freedom of the press act of 1766, for example, first in the world), and it was a peaceful transition seeing as no blood was shed (though certainly the threat of force was implicit and the king did receive a tackle as he tried to run away).

[Zanza]

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.

How about losing Ireland due to civil unrest (civil war would be too much I guess)? Ireland was not a colony, but rather an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

[The Brain]

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.

How about losing Ireland due to civil unrest (civil war would be too much I guess)? Ireland was not a colony, but rather an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Anglo-Saxons can never fail at anything. You know that.

[Zanza]

I'm not mentioning the Jacobites because they hardly did anything of note. A raid by a buncha highlanders? That all they got? 

Anyway, same challenge: if you don't like this example, feel free to mention another that has greater longevity.

You are really defining stability down: first we exclude all the colonies, which are by far the largest part of the empire, and now we are also excluding scotland. 

As I mentioned, I think the most successful large empire in terms of longetivity was Rome. After that, I would give the nod to the british (say 1607-1945) or spain (1492-1810).

I don't know much about the Far East, so I'm ignoring them.

The Ottoman Empire (1453-1918) and the Habsburg Empire (1526-1918) were quite long-lasting, fairly large empires too.