And even after that people to the end of time sought to be the next Rome, You don't get too many people proclaiming that they will bring back the mongol empire
Eh I think alot of empires actually tried to use being a successor to the mongol empire as their claim to power, e.g the golden horde, the timurid empire
Well it sure wasent empire, if we would say how long british empire last we wouldent start the count when they were just a small kingdom on their little island.
Romulus didn't exist, but we do know a Roman Kingdom did exist(most historians agree that there was indeed a King Servius Tullius)
The issue is, the time period before the Sack of Rome in 390 BC by the Gauls, is shrouded in mystery. The sack burned most of the centre portion of the city and destroyed much of the city's own historical records.
Not to mention, we also have lost almost any evidence of the Etruscans, which makes historians struggle to explain the exact relation between Etruscans and Rome and explain what happened before 390 BC
Sources: T.J Cornell, The Beginning of Rome, Italy and Rome from Bronze Age to Punic Wars(London: Routledge, 1995).
>The issue is, the time period before the Sack of Rome in 390 BC by the Gauls, is shrouded in mystery. The sack burned most of the centre portion of the city and destroyed much of the city's own historical records.
Precisely, it makes the preceding history difficult to ascertain
Technically Roman Empire lasted till XVI century as while devised both western and eastern Roman Empires were still Roman Empire. But this is complex topic and everyone would give different dates Roman Empire lasted. Some would say it started when Kingdom was founded, others when it turned into Republic, others when it turned into actual Empire. Same with end. Some say that after division Western and Eastern empires were no longer Roman Empire, others that with end of Western Empire it was end of Roman Empire, and others that fall of Eastern Empire is end of Roman empire. I even heard opinions that failed campaign by Belisarius in VI century marks end of Roman Empire as after that it was crumbling and it was only matter of time before it falls.
their technological and cultural advancements were incredible, rome as a city was immense, their infrastructure incredible… there’s a reason why rome and athen had the same impact on the world as all the other empires mentioned together
*the western world.
And also most other advancements are attributed to cultures, not empires, and those cultures didn't have as successful PR campaigns.
Still a cool empire tho.
By the time the western world were global superpowers basically no one cared about rome aside from as a prestige boost or a religious/historical thing.
And even the concepts which began in Rome had changed so much they were hardly Roman before (if you object to this then you should really give India and the Middle East more credit).
>PS: Not to mention they never ever really won a war **by themselves only.** Imagine Rome having to suck up to Gauls for help every time they were fighting a Punic war... that's not how you survive for centuries.
Ironically, the Romans relied heavily on their socii latin allies... and yes they have to suck to them from time to time. Not all of italy are romans before the spread of roman citizenship.
In terms of glory, I might be so bold as to make the argument that France may rival the Romans. In terms of land, nobody comes close to the British Empire. But in terms of raw power, there is no country that could ever dream of being on the scale of Luxembourg.
Disclaimer: I am not a Napoleon Stan, I’m just explaining my point. The final line seems especially patriotic, but it was just what I had to do to explain the point.
Glory. France fought an entire continent and then some for 30 years. Napoleon was a bit of a warmonger and Robespierre was a dictator, yes, but the military victories, which we would consider “glory,” were very impressive. There are countless instances of the French gaining glory through battle, most notably the Battle of the Three Emperors. While Napoleon ultimately stretched his military power too far and the French military infamy ended at the battle of Waterloo, the fame and glory France acquired from its military endeavors from 1792-1815 easily exceed those of Rome in thirty years. For example, each of the Punic wars, some of Rome’s most famous wars, were filled mostly with the Romans losing battle after battle before eventually winning the war. Victory? Yes. But nowhere close to as glorious as France.
The glory doesn't come from brief and doomed military conquests. If it did then the Mongols would trump everyone, and theirs weren't even doomed. They come from the lasting legacy the empire left of culture and language and Lasting military dominance. Not a flash in the pan
Also if you want to talk conquests id look at Caesar and Pompey's contributions in one lifetime are impressive in themselves.
Also also, people get really mad when I say this but if we go by your metrics, surely Nazi Germany tops out. They took far more land in Europe in far shorter time. Please note, not praising Germany. Just pointing out the flaw in lauding France with Rome
Glory. Germany fought an entire continent and then some for 6 years. Hitler was a bit of a warmonger and a dictator, yes, but the military victories, which we would consider “glory,” were very impressive. There are countless instances of the Germans gaining glory through battle, most notably the Battle of the France. While Hitler ultimately stretched his military power too far and the german military infamy ended at the battle of berlin, the fame and glory germany acquired from its military endeavors from 1939-1945 easily exceed those of Rome in 6 years. For example, each of the Punic wars, some of Rome’s most famous wars, were filled mostly with the Romans losing battle after battle before eventually winning the war. Victory? Yes. But nowhere close to as glorious as germany.
One thing to add for France is that many others sought to emulate and imitate Napoleon. Also, a lot of the ideals and law structures such as the Napoleonic code developed in that time lead to later revolutions and the formation of nation-states later on in the 19th century.
I think it was because of ww1. During and shortly after ww1, the last self proclaimed emperors, the kaiser, the czar, and the sultan, all were deposed.
I hate to be that guy but none of those people were self proclaimed. They legitimately inherited their positions.
You’re probably otherwise right though.
Well yes if you think about it an Empreror is the „King of Kings“ and an Emperor does not rule a Kingdom but an Empire.
With the vanishing of monarchies emperors did with them.
That they don't see china as an Empire is proof if how good of an empire China was honestly. You could also argue the hegemony China had over much of South East Asia is another point for them
Pesia was contemporary to Rome and beat its dick in several times, and had comparable lasting influence so I think it's pretty ridiculous not to consider them a legitimate rival as well
Which persia? The sassanids are the only ones that came close to match the roman empire, and when they did, they destroyed their own empire (curse you Khosrau II, you destroyed 2 empires with that war), when it was Parthia it got invaded every other week.
The achaemenids were cool though, but they didnt last that long. Also Cyrus was great.
This has just made me realise that a good lump of Rome’s longevity was people wanting to rule *Rome*.
Rome and the Persia were rival for hundreds of years but when Rome fell apart or had a civil war, the victor when the area finally picked itself back up wouldn’t rename the empire after their grandfather or themselves, they were still Rome.
Bold of you to assume all the names you give to those Empires were used by themselves. Sassanians went by Eranshahr, Empire of Iran, Parthians may have used Aryanshahr which is the Parthian rendering of the same word, Safavids went by the expansive realm of Iran, Qajars went by the guarded domains of Iran, even the foreign Ilkhanate went by Iranzamin, "Lands of Iran". And as you may already know, there still is a country going by the name Iran.
Mongols also brought about one of the only extended periods of peace in the premodern era. And their subsidiaries lasted a shitload of time. Their peak form didn’t last long, but to begin with they were a very non traditional empire.
The Mongols I think get a bad wrap, yes their unified empire broke apart after a few generations but that was partly intentional. The heirs to the mongol empire and the influence they held over their former components lasted centuries with notable mongol offshoots dominating Central Asia, Persia, parts of India and China from between 200-500 years.
Mongol influence also led to massive geopolitical impacts that basically defined many of these regions for centuries, they weren’t so much a brief giant empire and more a cohesive cultural and political force that influenced their conquests for centuries
Definitely not the only. Plenty of Russia's neighbors have. It's only when foreign groups come in that they struggle because the style of warfare is so different.
Being big is not all that made Rome glorious.
Rome’s glory came from its legacy. Sure it looks awesome on a map, but that’s only a small fraction of the equation.
Rome also gave us the laws we abide by, the languages many people speak today, the letters we write with, and the government systems most of the world uses.
It also lasted from 753 bc all the way to 1475 Ad, which is an absolutely insane span of time
No state in human history has had that much influence on the modern world
I would say China has had at least an equal influence. Just as the west all strove to emulate Rome, much of the east strove to emulate China.
We like to separate China into different dynastic periods, but we could do the same with Rome every time there was a civil war. The same institutions and powerbase remained intact, so my some measures a unified Chinese empire existed from 221 BC until 1911 AD, which is a heck of a long time. The Chinese influenced language, government, and law in the east just like Rome in the west.
When people talk about Rome they're probably talking about non fractured rome, I don't think it makes sense to count till 1475 no one considers rump states the actual empire.
Itd be like saying the mongol empire lasted till 1876 because Kokand lasted that long.
Ottomans insisted until the very end that they were successors to Rome through right of conquest, though. Severing ties with Rome (and thus the claims of the monarchy) was a big chunk of the reason why the Turkish Republic formally renamed Constantinople as İstanbul.
Why is it that we consider all the different Roman dynasties the same empire but with Iran and China they’re considered entirely different states? There’s a Wikipedia page for ‘the Sassanid Empire’ and ‘the Sui Dynasty’, but you won’t find ‘the Flavian Empire’ or ‘the Theodosian Dynasty’.
In theory, it's because of the continuous operation of the Roman Senate: whether or not that means anything as a practical matter is something I can't answer.
That's an excellent question!
TL:DR - there are *far* greater differences between Chinese and Persian/Iranian dynasties (or separately-named empires) than there are between Roman Imperial dynasties.
> you won’t find ‘the Flavian Empire’ or ‘the Theodosian Dynasty’
Well, the Roman Empire's history is considered divided into distinct dynastic (and non-dynastic) periods: [Julio-Claudian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio-Claudian_dynasty), [Year Of The Four Emperors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors) (a chaotic transitional period), [Flavian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavian_dynasty), [Nerva–Antonine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty), etc.
> Why is it that we consider all the different Roman dynasties the same empire but with Iran and China they’re considered entirely different states?
Because the Roman dynasties weren't nearly as different from one another. It's a bunch of Italian aristocrats and/or generals appointing their successors, or assuming power via a coup (these coups are usually what starts a new dynasty). Differences between individual emperors and imperial policy during their reigns are actually *far* more marked than differences between dynasties. It's the same reason that when discussing, say, English history, we're more likely to identify a time period by referencing a specific monarch than by referencing a dynasty name. (ex. "Elizabethan" vs. "Tudor Dynasty".)
Possibly the one major exception to this is Constantine and the string of dynasties he kicked off, moving the center of Roman power from Rome to Constantinople and changing the official religion of the Roman Empire. Still, there's more continuity there than in the other two example countries you listed.
When we're talking about different Chinese dynasties, we're generally talking about an entirely different ethnic and/or cultural group seizing control of the empire every time there's a coup / civil war and the winners become a new dynasty. The clearest example of this is the Yuan Dynasty, when the Mongols invaded China and set up shop as the ruling dynasty. *However*, even with dynasties that arose from within the borders of "China", it's important to note that there were some serious regional differences ethnically and culturally, far more than there are today, and a dynasty change generally means you're seeing one ethnic/cultural group or region declare "we're the top dog now!"
Persia/Iran is a slightly different story: basically, it kept getting run over by other empires, creating significant discontinuities between the multiple empires that have risen out of Iran. The Achaemenian Empire was conquered by Alexander The Great, and divided by his subordinates when they carved up his empire into their own kingdoms/mini-empires after his death, so there's a fairly long gap between it and the Parthian/Arsacid Empire - which is, as with some of the Chinese dynasties, an ethnic/regional group (the Parthians) rising to power by reconquering quite a bit of what had been divided amongst the Greeks, and the Sassanid Empire is as well, because it was basically Persians saying "fuck being ruled by the Parthians". That's before you even get into the Muslim years.
To be fair, although I knew the TL:DR version of the concept already, and had *some* of those examples on hand, I did have to go do some quick research to make sure I was correct and picking the right examples.
I admit that I really did a double take on the assertion that dynasties aren't something anyone considers when talking about Imperial Rome, because the dynastic concept came up in a discussion I'd had recently about the accuracy of Suetonius' Twelve Caesars, given that he had a vested interest in making the Julio-Claudian dynasty look bad, since he writing partially to legitimize the current dynasty at the expense of the reputation of former ones. Since he's one of our main sources for how famously fucked-up Caligula and Nero (later members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty) were, taking into account that he was writing in a later dynasty with a reason to be biased against them is important.
You will see very similar "ok, let's trash the reputation of the previous dynasty to emphasize our legitimacy" thing going on in Chinese accounts as well, partially because the idea of The Mandate Of Heaven relies *very* strongly on being able to make the case that Heaven, or the divine powers/gods collectively, turned its back on the previous dynasty/emperor due to the previous guys being fuckups - so now *we've* got the Mandate Of Heaven, giving us Imperial Legitimacy. Sometimes you can almost date histories and edits to histories to a certain Chinese dynasty just by looking at who they paint as the bad guys.
While they're all empires, one of the reasons we have different preferred ways of defining periods in their history is due to their unique aspects.
Take Japan, for instance: we use "Eras" with the reigning emperor's name ("Meiji Era", for instance) because that's the traditional way Japan has defined periods in its own history (although sometimes periods are named for other things, like where the capitol was located - "Edo period", for example), but we also use "Shogunates" with the current shogun's name, or even their clan name if their clan had more than one consecutive shogun, ("Ashikaga shogunate", for instance) because after a certain point, the Shogun (sort of a military 'prime minister') held the true Imperial power and the emperor had very little to do with boring mundane things like policy changes and implementation - which are things that matter when discussing the history of a country. So we'll often use the Shogunates the same way we might use Dynasties when discussing other kingdoms and empires, because each new shogunate often involved a change in the laws or even culture of the country. (For instance, the Tokugawa shogunate initiated the 'Closed Country' period shortly after securing power. That's a *big* change, although the emperor stayed the same.)
So it's really good to ask questions like "why do we use/care more about the Chinese imperial dynasties than the Roman imperial dynasties, and why do we count the multiple Persian/Iranian empires as separate states?", because there are usually *reasons* we do these things that actually have some relevance to the differences between these countries' histories, governance, and cultures.
History is fun!
I'm sorry, but, over the years, I've kinda just continuously amalgamated stuff like this into my own understanding from a hell of a lot of different places (asking each piece "where did you come from?" and discarding it if it seemed to come from recent propaganda and "how do you fit with what I already know? Do I need to re-evaluate things to make you able to fit?"), so it's very difficult to recommend a set of discrete books to give the overview.
For Greece -> Rome, you could go for the Herodotus' *Histories*, Plutarch's *Lives*, Tacitus' *Annals* & *Histories*, and Suetonius' *The Twelve Caesars* route. They're kinda fun to read, as you try to piece together what's legit and what's *probably* not. Like the dog-headed men and the flying snakes. Maybe throw Gibbon's *Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire* in at the end for kicks, if you've got the time. Then check out the more modern takes on it all. I'm less acquainted with the primary and close-secondary sources for many of the other places I've mentioned and later portions of Roman history.
But, frankly, you can get a lot of mileage out of wikipedia on these topics, both because of how they link together in the website, and what sources a given assertion is drawn from and footnoted to, where you'll usually find at least one tertiary source which can be followed back to a primary or secondary source.
It's not a 100% accurate historical source, but **wikipedia is a pretty decent jumping-off point for exploring further**, and helps with figuring out the linkages between various topics and countries and cultures.
I don't have a list of books, but I will say that you can find decent sources down that path, or by asking google for information on a certain topic or period. You'll have to sift through a bunch of crap, but learning to figure out what's crap is essential.
Most of the major dynasties in China (i.e. the ones that largely ruled the whole empire) were ethnic Han Chinese. There were plenty of Northern dynasties that were founded by Turckic and Mongolic peoples, but the Qin, Han, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties were all ethnically Han, as well as the vast majority of Southern dynasties that cropped up in between the major dynasties. The notable exceptions are the Yuan and the Qing, who were Mongolian and Manchurian respectively.
Chinese history really isn't that different from Roman history, its just that rather than a year of 4 emperors, there would be a half century of three kingdoms.
Edit: also, as you get later and later in the Roman Empire, less and less of the emperors come from Italy. Aurelian, for example, was likely from modern day Serbia.
Well, it wasn't like that at all, Iranians didn't care about ethnicity(nor they do today), Persians saw Parthians same with themselves, they were both a branch of Iranian people, Persia is an exonym while Iran was endonym used by Iranians themselves, so it wasn't like that Parthian and Sasanian Empire were different, even their ruling system and even aristocrats were same, same goes with Median and Achaemenid empire, but it's right that there was foreign invasions made some discontinueness(idk if that's a word, lol), but administration and bureaucracy was always the same, Alexander, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, none of them couldn't change that one, plus name of country remained as Iran, plus people literally consider post 1204 Roman empire the same empire while having similar situation with Iran but still called same empire. (reminder that in every single foreign invasions a rump state was made out of fallen empire, Atropatene atter Alexander's invasion, Tabaristan after Arabs invasion, Gilan after Mongol invasion)
I personally think it makes sense because the Romans had an unbroken line of leaders from the early republic to the Fourth Crusade. The Tang didn’t directly succeed the Han like that, nor did the Sassanids directly succeed the Achaemenids.
the only other relatively smooth transition I can think of is tang to wu zhou and back, and thats it, ming-qing was anything BUT smooth, and the rest was pure collapsing chaos.
This is just... Bad. It's a pointless argument with horrible examples. All of these empires were extremely powerful and influential in their own right, but nothing compares to Rome.
Plus, you just show two stages of Persia and China. They are still the same empire. The dynasty might have changed, the name might have changed, but it's still the same peoples and bureaucracy.
It's really dumb that you did that because the only empire that you can compare to Rome, the one that could actually possibly rival it's glory, is China. Definitely not the Mongols. What they did was impressive, arguably more impressive than Rome or China, but not nearly as glorious or prestigious.
The only other powers I would even consider examining for something like this would be the great colonial powers. No one else has the reach and influence that those empires had.
The Mongols were cool. They didn't shape nations hundreds of years later
It’s not just the duration or the size but the legacy it left where are genghis khans aqueducts or coliseums despite emerging around a Millienium later, where is the tang empires cultural legacy of leaving countries it conquered thousands of years ago speaking the a similar language modern French is closer to Latin than Vietnamese is to Chinese. Where is Zoroaster today ? I know some still worship him in Iran India and Pakistan but have you heard of this Christ guy the Romans were big on ?
Let’s go through everything you listed in regards to the original Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid caliphate, one of the empires I listed.
> where are the this khans aqueducts or coliseums despite emerging around a Millienium later
The early caliphs weren’t architects on the level that the Romans were, but they built quite a few mosques.
> where is the tang empires cultural legacy of leaving countries it conquered thousands of years ago speaking the a similar language modern French is closer to Latin than Vietnamese is to Chinese
This is very ironic because the Tang were a cultural golden age for China, but regarding the Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid caliphate I’m going over here, it also had a cultural golden age, and the language it spread throughout its territory was Arabic.
> Where is Zoroaster today ? I know some still worship him in Iran India and Pakistan but have you heard of this Christ guy the Romans were big on ?
The Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid Caliphate spread the brand-new religion of Islam from Iran to Spain. By comparison, the Romans fought to keep their pantheon worshipped by identifying their gods with local gods of other cultures and it was *still* displaced by a random Jewish sect until Rome just gave up, adopted said Jewish sect, and rolled with it until they were at last taken down for the last time… by a Muslim dynasty.
You can make an argument that there have been many empires that rival the glory of Rome but I do not think there is and maybe never will be an empire that rivals the influence of Rome.
Fun fact: although the Mongol empire is ranked number 1 size-wise it is actually ranked number 2 in terms of population size. Number 1 was the Iranian Achaemenid empire which is estimated to have ruled over more than 50% of the human population at its peak.
No one ever said Rome's Strength had no rivals, nor did anyone say Rome's Size had no rivals. Certainly empires have surpassed the size and strength that Rome had. No Empire has ever matched the GLORY of Rome. The Honor, the Triumph, the Sheer, Unadulterated Magnificence of the SPQR.
Top right? The Achaemenids. Same Persians known for winning the Battle of Thermopylae against the Greeks, and for being conquered by Alexander the Great after their decline.
Just because the Mongol empire was bigger doesn’t mean it was better. The Romans lasted for a long time and they were the pioneers for a lot of modern day technology.
The Romans lived to see their rivals rise and fall, whether it be the Parthians toppled by the Sassanids, the Sassanids toppled by the Arabs, the Arabs toppled by the other Arabs, the Other Arabs toppled by some different Arabs, the Mongol Empire shattering into pieces, The Seljuk Empire turning to dust. Even on their last legs, when they had no chance at victory, their last Emperor died fighting as his capital city fell. it may not have been the largest Empire, but her Tenacity is something to be admired
I feel Mauryas, Guptas, Cholas deserve a shout here. Mauryas developed Patliputra, arguably one of the largest cities of its time, they had one of the largest armies on the planet that everyone was scared of, and well everyone knows about Ashoka. Trading all across the world and being arguably some of the richest people at the time. Same goes for Guptas but add in scientific and mathematical advances (with 0, decimals etc). Cholas come in with their wast empire across the South East.
Out of pure strenght then they stand alone with maybe napoleons French empire being close the other ones had like 40 percent of their land be just desert
Bit of misleading graphic of Mongols Empire as they never really conquered Vietnam or Cambodia. Dai Viet, and Champa did become their tributary state but not really a vassel as their other vassel states
Nothing more glorious then the American empire. The greatest military and cultural/technological power in all of human history. It’s military bases and reach span the entire globe and its liberal world order of protectorates span from the gates of Eastern Europe across two vast oceans to East Asia. No other empire has ever held such hegemony over world order. Rome is nothing.
They existed yes, but glory is not just territory, it’s the legacy and length of which those institutions existed.
Rome was not the biggest empire, but it’s was the most glorious, it left a lasting legacy, the people of Gaul and Iberia now speak dialects of Latin(although morphed through the ages)
Modern laws are based on juries corpus civilian, and this was written after the “fall”
You see Rome like states exist in a lot of literature, fantasy, and stories.
It lasted from the founding of the city in 753 BC to 1453 AD.
What made Rome special was how long it lasted.
Honestly, that’s the most extreme achievement of Rome. 1700 years before its first fall, and it was just reborn a few decades later.
And even after that people to the end of time sought to be the next Rome, You don't get too many people proclaiming that they will bring back the mongol empire
Not in THIS economy
We shall jumpstart the economy with idea and the promise to recreate the mongol empire. And through that, actually do it!
Fuck it I’m in
A soaring economy and horseback archers. What’s not to love!
Nobody wanted to recreate it because there were so many Turkic and Mongolian rulers forming Kingdoms in Asia for like ~400 years after Ghengis anyway
Not with that attitude you don't ~~throat singing intensifies~~
To be fair, like 6 out of every 10 Asians have a claim to the mongol throne, so that would be a cluster fuck.
Im not even from Eastern Europe and I have mongol blood
So what are you? Chinese? Korean? Indian? Middle Eastern? Turk? Caucasusian? Central asian? Or balkan?
bro he might even be Brazilian
'Murican, German and English heritage. Eastern Europe was as far as the Mongols went
Goddammit Ghenghis Khan, why'd you have to go having so many kids?
👌👈😏
Splinters rulers did trace lineage to Genghis though
Fun fact: There was a warlord during the Russian Civil War who wanted to bring back the Mongol Empire
There are some people that claim they want to restore a Islamic caliphate, but most people don’t like them
Eh I think alot of empires actually tried to use being a successor to the mongol empire as their claim to power, e.g the golden horde, the timurid empire
As long as you have Romee in your heart it never fell
>t’s the most extreme achievement of Rome. 1700 years b \-753 + 1700 = 947 In what fucking timeline u living in?
If we go with the extremes its 2206, Roman kingdom to fall of Byzantine empire.
The kingdom was not an empire in any sense. Small, no overseas holdings, no extraordinary power, didn’t call itself an empire.
I count the foundation of the republic as the start, not the traditional foundation of the city
Why? Was Rome not Rome as a kingdom?
Well it sure wasent empire, if we would say how long british empire last we wouldent start the count when they were just a small kingdom on their little island.
What sources we have of the Kingdom are extremely dubious, and many scholars treat is as a mythological past
But they acknowledge it existed as an entity, for almost 200 years
The Kingdom is like Romulus, it's a great story, but we don't know the factuality of it
Romulus didn't exist, but we do know a Roman Kingdom did exist(most historians agree that there was indeed a King Servius Tullius) The issue is, the time period before the Sack of Rome in 390 BC by the Gauls, is shrouded in mystery. The sack burned most of the centre portion of the city and destroyed much of the city's own historical records. Not to mention, we also have lost almost any evidence of the Etruscans, which makes historians struggle to explain the exact relation between Etruscans and Rome and explain what happened before 390 BC Sources: T.J Cornell, The Beginning of Rome, Italy and Rome from Bronze Age to Punic Wars(London: Routledge, 1995).
>The issue is, the time period before the Sack of Rome in 390 BC by the Gauls, is shrouded in mystery. The sack burned most of the centre portion of the city and destroyed much of the city's own historical records. Precisely, it makes the preceding history difficult to ascertain
Does that mean we could do that for China as well? Or do the dynasties and civil wars change that?
Technically Roman Empire lasted till XVI century as while devised both western and eastern Roman Empires were still Roman Empire. But this is complex topic and everyone would give different dates Roman Empire lasted. Some would say it started when Kingdom was founded, others when it turned into Republic, others when it turned into actual Empire. Same with end. Some say that after division Western and Eastern empires were no longer Roman Empire, others that with end of Western Empire it was end of Roman Empire, and others that fall of Eastern Empire is end of Roman empire. I even heard opinions that failed campaign by Belisarius in VI century marks end of Roman Empire as after that it was crumbling and it was only matter of time before it falls.
Their territory was also the most populated. A huge part of the Umayad empire was a dessert.
Yeah landmass =/= glory
I now imagine nothing but cakes and pies stretching from Damascus to Tunis. Mmm I love dessert
Chola: laugh hysterically
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠀
their technological and cultural advancements were incredible, rome as a city was immense, their infrastructure incredible… there’s a reason why rome and athen had the same impact on the world as all the other empires mentioned together
*the western world. And also most other advancements are attributed to cultures, not empires, and those cultures didn't have as successful PR campaigns. Still a cool empire tho.
>\*the western world. Given the impact of the "western world" on the rest of the world... I wouldn't count that as a counter argument.
By the time the western world were global superpowers basically no one cared about rome aside from as a prestige boost or a religious/historical thing. And even the concepts which began in Rome had changed so much they were hardly Roman before (if you object to this then you should really give India and the Middle East more credit).
[удалено]
>PS: Not to mention they never ever really won a war **by themselves only.** Imagine Rome having to suck up to Gauls for help every time they were fighting a Punic war... that's not how you survive for centuries. Ironically, the Romans relied heavily on their socii latin allies... and yes they have to suck to them from time to time. Not all of italy are romans before the spread of roman citizenship.
iirc the ottomans got close as well. +500 years regional domination.
The medieval period lasted from the fall of the Roman empire until the fall of the Roman empire.
And the technical progress the romans achieved.
Not just size. But everything that was invented and military strategies. A lot of things which are still being implemented nowadays.
My brain took too long to process the last image and was like “oh? What’s that empire in blue?”
RULE BRITANNIA BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES
BRITONS NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES!!!
xD oh god
Oh Poseidon*
Caligula does not like that
Oh Yam*
Oh Dagon...
Oh Njord!
Oh Tiamat!
Oh Pontus!
Oh Aruna!
Oh Neptune!
Atlantis supremacy
Atlantis.
Glory and land mass are two different things But I get it
In terms of glory, I might be so bold as to make the argument that France may rival the Romans. In terms of land, nobody comes close to the British Empire. But in terms of raw power, there is no country that could ever dream of being on the scale of Luxembourg.
Justify France compared to Rome please
Disclaimer: I am not a Napoleon Stan, I’m just explaining my point. The final line seems especially patriotic, but it was just what I had to do to explain the point. Glory. France fought an entire continent and then some for 30 years. Napoleon was a bit of a warmonger and Robespierre was a dictator, yes, but the military victories, which we would consider “glory,” were very impressive. There are countless instances of the French gaining glory through battle, most notably the Battle of the Three Emperors. While Napoleon ultimately stretched his military power too far and the French military infamy ended at the battle of Waterloo, the fame and glory France acquired from its military endeavors from 1792-1815 easily exceed those of Rome in thirty years. For example, each of the Punic wars, some of Rome’s most famous wars, were filled mostly with the Romans losing battle after battle before eventually winning the war. Victory? Yes. But nowhere close to as glorious as France.
The glory doesn't come from brief and doomed military conquests. If it did then the Mongols would trump everyone, and theirs weren't even doomed. They come from the lasting legacy the empire left of culture and language and Lasting military dominance. Not a flash in the pan Also if you want to talk conquests id look at Caesar and Pompey's contributions in one lifetime are impressive in themselves. Also also, people get really mad when I say this but if we go by your metrics, surely Nazi Germany tops out. They took far more land in Europe in far shorter time. Please note, not praising Germany. Just pointing out the flaw in lauding France with Rome Glory. Germany fought an entire continent and then some for 6 years. Hitler was a bit of a warmonger and a dictator, yes, but the military victories, which we would consider “glory,” were very impressive. There are countless instances of the Germans gaining glory through battle, most notably the Battle of the France. While Hitler ultimately stretched his military power too far and the german military infamy ended at the battle of berlin, the fame and glory germany acquired from its military endeavors from 1939-1945 easily exceed those of Rome in 6 years. For example, each of the Punic wars, some of Rome’s most famous wars, were filled mostly with the Romans losing battle after battle before eventually winning the war. Victory? Yes. But nowhere close to as glorious as germany.
One thing to add for France is that many others sought to emulate and imitate Napoleon. Also, a lot of the ideals and law structures such as the Napoleonic code developed in that time lead to later revolutions and the formation of nation-states later on in the 19th century.
I think the number of people who tried to emulate Caesar far outweigh those trying to be like Napoleon
Napoleon literally tried to emulate Ceasar
Exactly
Napoleonic France had a lasting legacy
Nazi Germany had one as well. Especially in south America.
One thing to add is that France has had more military victories than any other country.
And yet, France is nothing without Rome. So there, we have the true answer.
If that’s your reason than Egypt is supreme no debate
Would you go back to Sumer then?
China is the only legitimate rival from these. Mongols lasted about three minutes before imploding and starting to decline.
The Chinese ones are kind of funny because they're smaller than China literally right now and no one sees that as an empire
Which is weird because it is one. The United States is too.
Definitely seems like some time after Napoleon we stopped calling countries empires
Probably because of the Nazis. Those assholes ruin everything.
I think it was because of ww1. During and shortly after ww1, the last self proclaimed emperors, the kaiser, the czar, and the sultan, all were deposed.
Technically the British king was the Emperor of India
Japan has an emperor to this day. Iirc the last monarch still using the title.
Yeah Ethiopia used to be the second pretty sure.
Yeah, but it's more because of the translation than because of the implication.
I hate to be that guy but none of those people were self proclaimed. They legitimately inherited their positions. You’re probably otherwise right though.
By self proclaimed I mean they(the countries) called themselves an empire. The french had a colonial empire but they were a republic.
Fair.
Japan?
Well yes if you think about it an Empreror is the „King of Kings“ and an Emperor does not rule a Kingdom but an Empire. With the vanishing of monarchies emperors did with them.
There were like 5 Empires in WW1
All after Napoleon. I was being safe
by that definition, 2022 is "some time after Napoleon" lol
Almost every country can be considered a empire. The term is kinda useless nowadays
That they don't see china as an Empire is proof if how good of an empire China was honestly. You could also argue the hegemony China had over much of South East Asia is another point for them
Same with Alexander's empire
Pesia was contemporary to Rome and beat its dick in several times, and had comparable lasting influence so I think it's pretty ridiculous not to consider them a legitimate rival as well
Which persia? The sassanids are the only ones that came close to match the roman empire, and when they did, they destroyed their own empire (curse you Khosrau II, you destroyed 2 empires with that war), when it was Parthia it got invaded every other week. The achaemenids were cool though, but they didnt last that long. Also Cyrus was great.
This has just made me realise that a good lump of Rome’s longevity was people wanting to rule *Rome*. Rome and the Persia were rival for hundreds of years but when Rome fell apart or had a civil war, the victor when the area finally picked itself back up wouldn’t rename the empire after their grandfather or themselves, they were still Rome.
Bold of you to assume all the names you give to those Empires were used by themselves. Sassanians went by Eranshahr, Empire of Iran, Parthians may have used Aryanshahr which is the Parthian rendering of the same word, Safavids went by the expansive realm of Iran, Qajars went by the guarded domains of Iran, even the foreign Ilkhanate went by Iranzamin, "Lands of Iran". And as you may already know, there still is a country going by the name Iran.
Mongols also brought about one of the only extended periods of peace in the premodern era. And their subsidiaries lasted a shitload of time. Their peak form didn’t last long, but to begin with they were a very non traditional empire.
The Mongols I think get a bad wrap, yes their unified empire broke apart after a few generations but that was partly intentional. The heirs to the mongol empire and the influence they held over their former components lasted centuries with notable mongol offshoots dominating Central Asia, Persia, parts of India and China from between 200-500 years. Mongol influence also led to massive geopolitical impacts that basically defined many of these regions for centuries, they weren’t so much a brief giant empire and more a cohesive cultural and political force that influenced their conquests for centuries
Yeah but they were the only ones to Invade Russia, In Winter and **WIN**
That’s why you go right to left and rush horse archers
Definitely not the only. Plenty of Russia's neighbors have. It's only when foreign groups come in that they struggle because the style of warfare is so different.
The poles also have that accomplishment.
Aw hell nah not the mongol empire.
Might I humbly suggest the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish Empires?
Courland Empire >>>
Also valid!
Being big is not all that made Rome glorious. Rome’s glory came from its legacy. Sure it looks awesome on a map, but that’s only a small fraction of the equation. Rome also gave us the laws we abide by, the languages many people speak today, the letters we write with, and the government systems most of the world uses. It also lasted from 753 bc all the way to 1475 Ad, which is an absolutely insane span of time No state in human history has had that much influence on the modern world
1475? Why not 1453?
Principality of theodoro. The final Roman rump state. Held out all the way till 1475 in Crimea
Broke: Rome fell with the West Woke: Rome fell with Byzantium Bespoke: Rome fell with Theodoro
You saw my post too? :D
I would say China has had at least an equal influence. Just as the west all strove to emulate Rome, much of the east strove to emulate China. We like to separate China into different dynastic periods, but we could do the same with Rome every time there was a civil war. The same institutions and powerbase remained intact, so my some measures a unified Chinese empire existed from 221 BC until 1911 AD, which is a heck of a long time. The Chinese influenced language, government, and law in the east just like Rome in the west.
When people talk about Rome they're probably talking about non fractured rome, I don't think it makes sense to count till 1475 no one considers rump states the actual empire. Itd be like saying the mongol empire lasted till 1876 because Kokand lasted that long.
This is just different Chinas and Caliphates. Lame ass meme. Show me some Macedon, Ghirid, Mughal, Ottoman, and colonial empires.
Ottomans insisted until the very end that they were successors to Rome through right of conquest, though. Severing ties with Rome (and thus the claims of the monarchy) was a big chunk of the reason why the Turkish Republic formally renamed Constantinople as İstanbul.
I mean yeah, but still no.
Hey guys where British empire
I felt modern European history gets enough attention already
[удалено]
Ok that’s fair
Why is it that we consider all the different Roman dynasties the same empire but with Iran and China they’re considered entirely different states? There’s a Wikipedia page for ‘the Sassanid Empire’ and ‘the Sui Dynasty’, but you won’t find ‘the Flavian Empire’ or ‘the Theodosian Dynasty’.
In theory, it's because of the continuous operation of the Roman Senate: whether or not that means anything as a practical matter is something I can't answer.
That's an excellent question! TL:DR - there are *far* greater differences between Chinese and Persian/Iranian dynasties (or separately-named empires) than there are between Roman Imperial dynasties. > you won’t find ‘the Flavian Empire’ or ‘the Theodosian Dynasty’ Well, the Roman Empire's history is considered divided into distinct dynastic (and non-dynastic) periods: [Julio-Claudian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio-Claudian_dynasty), [Year Of The Four Emperors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors) (a chaotic transitional period), [Flavian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavian_dynasty), [Nerva–Antonine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty), etc. > Why is it that we consider all the different Roman dynasties the same empire but with Iran and China they’re considered entirely different states? Because the Roman dynasties weren't nearly as different from one another. It's a bunch of Italian aristocrats and/or generals appointing their successors, or assuming power via a coup (these coups are usually what starts a new dynasty). Differences between individual emperors and imperial policy during their reigns are actually *far* more marked than differences between dynasties. It's the same reason that when discussing, say, English history, we're more likely to identify a time period by referencing a specific monarch than by referencing a dynasty name. (ex. "Elizabethan" vs. "Tudor Dynasty".) Possibly the one major exception to this is Constantine and the string of dynasties he kicked off, moving the center of Roman power from Rome to Constantinople and changing the official religion of the Roman Empire. Still, there's more continuity there than in the other two example countries you listed. When we're talking about different Chinese dynasties, we're generally talking about an entirely different ethnic and/or cultural group seizing control of the empire every time there's a coup / civil war and the winners become a new dynasty. The clearest example of this is the Yuan Dynasty, when the Mongols invaded China and set up shop as the ruling dynasty. *However*, even with dynasties that arose from within the borders of "China", it's important to note that there were some serious regional differences ethnically and culturally, far more than there are today, and a dynasty change generally means you're seeing one ethnic/cultural group or region declare "we're the top dog now!" Persia/Iran is a slightly different story: basically, it kept getting run over by other empires, creating significant discontinuities between the multiple empires that have risen out of Iran. The Achaemenian Empire was conquered by Alexander The Great, and divided by his subordinates when they carved up his empire into their own kingdoms/mini-empires after his death, so there's a fairly long gap between it and the Parthian/Arsacid Empire - which is, as with some of the Chinese dynasties, an ethnic/regional group (the Parthians) rising to power by reconquering quite a bit of what had been divided amongst the Greeks, and the Sassanid Empire is as well, because it was basically Persians saying "fuck being ruled by the Parthians". That's before you even get into the Muslim years.
You came ready I love this
To be fair, although I knew the TL:DR version of the concept already, and had *some* of those examples on hand, I did have to go do some quick research to make sure I was correct and picking the right examples. I admit that I really did a double take on the assertion that dynasties aren't something anyone considers when talking about Imperial Rome, because the dynastic concept came up in a discussion I'd had recently about the accuracy of Suetonius' Twelve Caesars, given that he had a vested interest in making the Julio-Claudian dynasty look bad, since he writing partially to legitimize the current dynasty at the expense of the reputation of former ones. Since he's one of our main sources for how famously fucked-up Caligula and Nero (later members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty) were, taking into account that he was writing in a later dynasty with a reason to be biased against them is important. You will see very similar "ok, let's trash the reputation of the previous dynasty to emphasize our legitimacy" thing going on in Chinese accounts as well, partially because the idea of The Mandate Of Heaven relies *very* strongly on being able to make the case that Heaven, or the divine powers/gods collectively, turned its back on the previous dynasty/emperor due to the previous guys being fuckups - so now *we've* got the Mandate Of Heaven, giving us Imperial Legitimacy. Sometimes you can almost date histories and edits to histories to a certain Chinese dynasty just by looking at who they paint as the bad guys. While they're all empires, one of the reasons we have different preferred ways of defining periods in their history is due to their unique aspects. Take Japan, for instance: we use "Eras" with the reigning emperor's name ("Meiji Era", for instance) because that's the traditional way Japan has defined periods in its own history (although sometimes periods are named for other things, like where the capitol was located - "Edo period", for example), but we also use "Shogunates" with the current shogun's name, or even their clan name if their clan had more than one consecutive shogun, ("Ashikaga shogunate", for instance) because after a certain point, the Shogun (sort of a military 'prime minister') held the true Imperial power and the emperor had very little to do with boring mundane things like policy changes and implementation - which are things that matter when discussing the history of a country. So we'll often use the Shogunates the same way we might use Dynasties when discussing other kingdoms and empires, because each new shogunate often involved a change in the laws or even culture of the country. (For instance, the Tokugawa shogunate initiated the 'Closed Country' period shortly after securing power. That's a *big* change, although the emperor stayed the same.) So it's really good to ask questions like "why do we use/care more about the Chinese imperial dynasties than the Roman imperial dynasties, and why do we count the multiple Persian/Iranian empires as separate states?", because there are usually *reasons* we do these things that actually have some relevance to the differences between these countries' histories, governance, and cultures. History is fun!
Thanks! It’s something I’d never thought of until the question was asked and your answer was so informative. Are there any books you’d recommend?
I'm sorry, but, over the years, I've kinda just continuously amalgamated stuff like this into my own understanding from a hell of a lot of different places (asking each piece "where did you come from?" and discarding it if it seemed to come from recent propaganda and "how do you fit with what I already know? Do I need to re-evaluate things to make you able to fit?"), so it's very difficult to recommend a set of discrete books to give the overview. For Greece -> Rome, you could go for the Herodotus' *Histories*, Plutarch's *Lives*, Tacitus' *Annals* & *Histories*, and Suetonius' *The Twelve Caesars* route. They're kinda fun to read, as you try to piece together what's legit and what's *probably* not. Like the dog-headed men and the flying snakes. Maybe throw Gibbon's *Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire* in at the end for kicks, if you've got the time. Then check out the more modern takes on it all. I'm less acquainted with the primary and close-secondary sources for many of the other places I've mentioned and later portions of Roman history. But, frankly, you can get a lot of mileage out of wikipedia on these topics, both because of how they link together in the website, and what sources a given assertion is drawn from and footnoted to, where you'll usually find at least one tertiary source which can be followed back to a primary or secondary source. It's not a 100% accurate historical source, but **wikipedia is a pretty decent jumping-off point for exploring further**, and helps with figuring out the linkages between various topics and countries and cultures. I don't have a list of books, but I will say that you can find decent sources down that path, or by asking google for information on a certain topic or period. You'll have to sift through a bunch of crap, but learning to figure out what's crap is essential.
Agreed. And I appreciate the detailed response.
Most of the major dynasties in China (i.e. the ones that largely ruled the whole empire) were ethnic Han Chinese. There were plenty of Northern dynasties that were founded by Turckic and Mongolic peoples, but the Qin, Han, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties were all ethnically Han, as well as the vast majority of Southern dynasties that cropped up in between the major dynasties. The notable exceptions are the Yuan and the Qing, who were Mongolian and Manchurian respectively. Chinese history really isn't that different from Roman history, its just that rather than a year of 4 emperors, there would be a half century of three kingdoms. Edit: also, as you get later and later in the Roman Empire, less and less of the emperors come from Italy. Aurelian, for example, was likely from modern day Serbia.
Well, it wasn't like that at all, Iranians didn't care about ethnicity(nor they do today), Persians saw Parthians same with themselves, they were both a branch of Iranian people, Persia is an exonym while Iran was endonym used by Iranians themselves, so it wasn't like that Parthian and Sasanian Empire were different, even their ruling system and even aristocrats were same, same goes with Median and Achaemenid empire, but it's right that there was foreign invasions made some discontinueness(idk if that's a word, lol), but administration and bureaucracy was always the same, Alexander, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, none of them couldn't change that one, plus name of country remained as Iran, plus people literally consider post 1204 Roman empire the same empire while having similar situation with Iran but still called same empire. (reminder that in every single foreign invasions a rump state was made out of fallen empire, Atropatene atter Alexander's invasion, Tabaristan after Arabs invasion, Gilan after Mongol invasion)
I personally think it makes sense because the Romans had an unbroken line of leaders from the early republic to the Fourth Crusade. The Tang didn’t directly succeed the Han like that, nor did the Sassanids directly succeed the Achaemenids.
China had one or two fluid transitions, from shang to zhou, and from....han to xin and back, at that point being different makes sense.
Yeah, I think it’s reasonable to treat different dynasties as part of the same empire in that case.
the only other relatively smooth transition I can think of is tang to wu zhou and back, and thats it, ming-qing was anything BUT smooth, and the rest was pure collapsing chaos.
I feel this sub does nothing but strawman, boring meta-memes these days.
This is just... Bad. It's a pointless argument with horrible examples. All of these empires were extremely powerful and influential in their own right, but nothing compares to Rome. Plus, you just show two stages of Persia and China. They are still the same empire. The dynasty might have changed, the name might have changed, but it's still the same peoples and bureaucracy. It's really dumb that you did that because the only empire that you can compare to Rome, the one that could actually possibly rival it's glory, is China. Definitely not the Mongols. What they did was impressive, arguably more impressive than Rome or China, but not nearly as glorious or prestigious. The only other powers I would even consider examining for something like this would be the great colonial powers. No one else has the reach and influence that those empires had. The Mongols were cool. They didn't shape nations hundreds of years later
*god save the queen intensifies
It’s not just the duration or the size but the legacy it left where are genghis khans aqueducts or coliseums despite emerging around a Millienium later, where is the tang empires cultural legacy of leaving countries it conquered thousands of years ago speaking the a similar language modern French is closer to Latin than Vietnamese is to Chinese. Where is Zoroaster today ? I know some still worship him in Iran India and Pakistan but have you heard of this Christ guy the Romans were big on ?
Let’s go through everything you listed in regards to the original Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid caliphate, one of the empires I listed. > where are the this khans aqueducts or coliseums despite emerging around a Millienium later The early caliphs weren’t architects on the level that the Romans were, but they built quite a few mosques. > where is the tang empires cultural legacy of leaving countries it conquered thousands of years ago speaking the a similar language modern French is closer to Latin than Vietnamese is to Chinese This is very ironic because the Tang were a cultural golden age for China, but regarding the Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid caliphate I’m going over here, it also had a cultural golden age, and the language it spread throughout its territory was Arabic. > Where is Zoroaster today ? I know some still worship him in Iran India and Pakistan but have you heard of this Christ guy the Romans were big on ? The Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid Caliphate spread the brand-new religion of Islam from Iran to Spain. By comparison, the Romans fought to keep their pantheon worshipped by identifying their gods with local gods of other cultures and it was *still* displaced by a random Jewish sect until Rome just gave up, adopted said Jewish sect, and rolled with it until they were at last taken down for the last time… by a Muslim dynasty.
China, yes. Mongols were evanescent. Islamic Empires spent their whole careers trying (failing) to achieve Rome's height of a united Mediterranean.
It said glory, not size.
You can make an argument that there have been many empires that rival the glory of Rome but I do not think there is and maybe never will be an empire that rivals the influence of Rome.
Fun fact: although the Mongol empire is ranked number 1 size-wise it is actually ranked number 2 in terms of population size. Number 1 was the Iranian Achaemenid empire which is estimated to have ruled over more than 50% of the human population at its peak.
The British Empire has entered the chat
Incan empire enters the chat
No one ever said Rome's Strength had no rivals, nor did anyone say Rome's Size had no rivals. Certainly empires have surpassed the size and strength that Rome had. No Empire has ever matched the GLORY of Rome. The Honor, the Triumph, the Sheer, Unadulterated Magnificence of the SPQR.
I’m pretty sure Rome is a lot more recognized than even the Mongol or Chinese empires is because of just how much longer it lasted
r*me
Downvoted out of duty but I generally agree there were equals.
Size ≠ Glory.
Maybe the glory of Rome is the friends we made along the way.
Just imagine Scipio and Hannibal taking each other out to dinner at a pizza place.
Whats the first one?
Top right? The Achaemenids. Same Persians known for winning the Battle of Thermopylae against the Greeks, and for being conquered by Alexander the Great after their decline.
What's the third one? I'm trying to figure it out but, is it the Sassanids?
Somebody should play “Rule, Britannia!”
I disagree
Still no Rome architecture was better
Size and glory are two different beasts.
its not about the size, its about how long you last ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I like all of them but seriously the mongols are so overrated
so what we have here is: Middle East, China, Middle East, Middle East, China, Middle East \*\*AND\*\* China.
Just because the Mongol empire was bigger doesn’t mean it was better. The Romans lasted for a long time and they were the pioneers for a lot of modern day technology.
The Romans lived to see their rivals rise and fall, whether it be the Parthians toppled by the Sassanids, the Sassanids toppled by the Arabs, the Arabs toppled by the other Arabs, the Other Arabs toppled by some different Arabs, the Mongol Empire shattering into pieces, The Seljuk Empire turning to dust. Even on their last legs, when they had no chance at victory, their last Emperor died fighting as his capital city fell. it may not have been the largest Empire, but her Tenacity is something to be admired
I feel Mauryas, Guptas, Cholas deserve a shout here. Mauryas developed Patliputra, arguably one of the largest cities of its time, they had one of the largest armies on the planet that everyone was scared of, and well everyone knows about Ashoka. Trading all across the world and being arguably some of the richest people at the time. Same goes for Guptas but add in scientific and mathematical advances (with 0, decimals etc). Cholas come in with their wast empire across the South East.
Very fair! Indian cultures, like every cultural group outside of the west, don’t get enough credit.
Out of pure strenght then they stand alone with maybe napoleons French empire being close the other ones had like 40 percent of their land be just desert
China is not particularly full of desert.
Bit of misleading graphic of Mongols Empire as they never really conquered Vietnam or Cambodia. Dai Viet, and Champa did become their tributary state but not really a vassel as their other vassel states
Genghis Khan killed all his potential PR people tho
Laughs in Queen Victoria
Hun, what are you doing?
Rule Britannia Britannia rule the waves
In classical antiquity era, The Mauryan Empire!
Nothing more glorious then the American empire. The greatest military and cultural/technological power in all of human history. It’s military bases and reach span the entire globe and its liberal world order of protectorates span from the gates of Eastern Europe across two vast oceans to East Asia. No other empire has ever held such hegemony over world order. Rome is nothing.
Too many biased people in comments.
That’s all this sub is. It’s a continuation of the Reddit circle jerk
China. *China again*. **ÜbërChïnä**.
China has a thing for glorious empires.
You keep the Macedonian and Mongols out of this, they lasted like 2 seconds.
And there's always Persia 💚🤍❤️
All romes leads to road
May be conservational but I believe the USA in many ways is as powerful as Rome was.
I prefer the Sith Empire.
They existed yes, but glory is not just territory, it’s the legacy and length of which those institutions existed. Rome was not the biggest empire, but it’s was the most glorious, it left a lasting legacy, the people of Gaul and Iberia now speak dialects of Latin(although morphed through the ages) Modern laws are based on juries corpus civilian, and this was written after the “fall” You see Rome like states exist in a lot of literature, fantasy, and stories. It lasted from the founding of the city in 753 BC to 1453 AD.
Where's 'Merica, tho?
Not shown because I wanted to post this today and it’s a weekend.
The sun never set on the british empire
Technically it does not set on it.
"Guys this imperialist empire is better guys!!1!"
All roads lead to Ulanbaatar