4 ms·
If we only count the Byzantine Empire, they lasted about ~1100 years (330-1453). Wikipedia says the Shang dynasty lasted only about ~600 years, leaving the Zhou
by kiiski 11y ago
If we only count the Byzantine Empire, they lasted about ~1100 years (330-1453). Wikipedia says the Shang dynasty lasted only about ~600 years, leaving the Zhou as the longest with their ~800 years. Assuming Wikipedia is correct, the Romans seem to have been more successful.
- meric 11y agoWhat's "successful"? If the Romans seem to have been more successful, how does that make you feel, compared to, if someone made a convincing argument the Romans were less successful? Reading about the Byzantine Empire just now[1], I'd say 476 to 867 was one "dynasty", because in 867 marked the beginning of a Macedonian dynasty, which lasted until 1025. This would break down the Roman empire into dynasties of length not unlike Chinese ones. How do you feel about that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
- kiiski 11y ago"More successful" here obviously means that their empire lasted a longer time, since that's what we're discussing. They may have been less successful in other ways. I don't really see what my feelings have to do with the discussion. The Macedonian Dynasty in the Byzantine isn't quite comparable to Chinese dynasties. In China, a dynasty change, AFAIK, meant that one group overthrew another group and established their own nation, with its own laws and government structures. In Byzantine the change to Macedonian Dynasty happened as a result of internal politics (+ assassination). The nation remained the same; just the guy in charge changed.