8 ms·
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America
by swman 3y ago
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776.
In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
- aragilar 3y ago2 thousand if you also include the eastern empire.
- morcus 3y agoIf you consider the so-called Byzantines to be Romans (and you should, for lots of reasons), the Roman state was at least a notable regional power all the way from the mid 300s BCE all the way up to 1204 - that's around 1500 years. And it existed for a few hundred years more on either end. Truly boggles the mind.
- cncovyvysi 3y agoFound the gold player with conq knowledge
- schoen 3y agoI remember someone (maybe Tamim Ansary?) writing that states that claimed to be the direct successor of the Roman Empire existed until 1922, at least in the sense that the Ottoman Empire used some titles and administrative terminology of the Byzantine Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#State_organisation_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_the_Ottoman... > After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmed II, Ottoman sultans came to regard themselves as the successors of the Roman Empire, hence their occasional use of the titles caesar (قیصر qayser) of Rûm, and emperor, as well as the caliph of Islam. A more direct name claim would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum which lasted until 1308. A different later tradition of claiming to be the Roman emperor is the Holy Roman Empire's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire which used that term after a break of several centuries (so not very continuously with the ancient Roman Empire). But Germans then claimed to be Roman emperors (in some sense) until 1806! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor These aren't as continuous with the ancient Roman empire as the Byzantines, but it's still pretty astonishing to think that various monarchs were still claiming to be (in at least a theoretical legal sense) Roman emperors during the 1800s and 1900s.
- tsunamifury 3y agoYea I think it’s a fair argument that the last gasp of the Roman Empire ended in world war 1
- xandrius 3y agoIf you forget Italian fascists trying to bring it back, otherwise you could push it to the end of WWII
- tsunamifury 3y agoSolid point.
- kibwen 3y agoUnfortunately, Putin still occasionally invokes Russia as the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire in an attempt to justify his imperial ambitions, so we're still riding this train.
- sorokod 3y agoThere is a Russian name for Istanbul - Царьгра́д (Tsargrad). The relevancy of this traditional name in our time can be glimpsed from the media org tsargrad.tv , a Russian equivalent of fox news.
- vik0 3y agoIt's not just a Russian name, it's the Slavic name for Constantinople. It's used in all Slavic-speaking countries when teaching Byzantine history, of course, written with slight distortions depending on the Slavic language in question
- sorokod 3y agoThe use of Byzantine seems to imply middle ages history. Do check out the Constantinople Agreement from 1915. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement
- staplung 3y agoHa, that's nothin'. The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day calendar (with no leap years) so it drifted by .25 days every year. So after 730 years it's essentially backwards (summer solstice is when winter solstice used to be etc.). After that, it starts coming back into alignment again but takes another 730 years to get there. They used their calendar for so long that it nearly had time to roll over like this twice!
- owlninja 3y agoSomehow, for the first time ever, I recently heard the idea of the 13 month year and I sort of nodded my head in interest. Then I heard someone breakdown the history of calendars and it really blew my mind. Mainly the amount of thought that went into it and the incredible span of time it was revised and discussed!
- eternauta3k 3y agoThis is an excellent podcast on the history of timekeeping: https://www.hi101.ca/?p=566 https://www.hi101.ca/?p=566
- brandensilva 3y agoThe 13 month per calendar year (Mayan calendar) just makes so much sense as a web developer but somehow as a human it also seems hella mundane to have the same 28 day cycle repeated. Maybe that last day of the year party would make up for it though.
- gsky 3y agoIndian Empire is older than Roman Empire if i'm not wrong and even America had emires before Europeans colonized. You need to read more history
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cncovyvysi 3y agoHe's comparing countries to ancient empires. Not locations.
- mminer237 3y ago??? What is the "Indian Empire"? The Mughal Empire? That lasted like 300 years.
- gsky 3y agoMughals were invaders just like europeans
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoI guess if we're talking about the Indus Valley Civilization[1] we're looking at a range of 700-2000 years based on how you define the start and end, but even that cannot be considered as equivalent to "India" which was formed as the union of multiple princely states around the general region after the end of colonial rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation
- nindalf 3y agoAt no point was all of modern India under one administrative entity until modern India. Even British India wasn’t one state, it was a patchwork of provinces governed by the British and Princely States. Modern India only came into being in 1948, when the Princes were gently persuaded to take a hike. But you’re right in the broader sense, that Indian people feel that India has been around for longer even if it hasn’t. That is arguably more important to keeping the nation together than anything else.
- petesergeant 3y agoThe distance of time between us and the Romans is less (by ~1,000 years) than the time between the Romans and the building of the pyramids
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mik1998 3y agoI mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years.
- derstander 3y ago> I mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years. This is interesting to me. What does it mean for a country to exist non-continuously? I can understand making the case under some sort of continuity despite dramatic changes in e.g. control of land or type of government. Sort of like a nation-state Ship of Theseus. But I don't understand how this works under the non-continuous case. If the temporal connection is broken how is it the same entity?
- rdlw 3y agoPoland was occupied by Germany during WWII. The people still considered themselves Poles during this time, and the only reason there wasn't a 'Poland' was because of military strength, so it seems silly to say that early 1939 Poland and late 1944 Poland are different countries because of lack of continuity. Certainly, almost all Poles will tell you the country 'began' (it kind of had a soft start) in 966, and not in 1944. (Note: there was technically the government-in-exile in London, which you could argue maintained continuity, but I don't think it's necessary so I'm leaving that out of this.)
- aikinai 3y agoWe are closer to Cleopatra than Cleopatra was to the building of the pyramids.
- josefx 3y agoCleopatra was also part of a greek dynasty that had been ruling egypt for centuries, since the times of Alexander the Great.
- helpfulContrib 3y agoImagine being able to tell stories that were passed down to you, mouth to ear, for 20,000 years! Sadly, that civilization has perished in the last 100 years. Still, Australians are teaching the languages in their schools now. Finally. We might still yet hear a whisper...
- nottorp 3y ago> I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. Hmm but India has existed in the form of multiple state entities that changed every hundred years or so for much longer than the 1k years. The Roman empire was also fragmented before its creation, and after. Look at how many Italian states divided the peninsula before the 19th century. Our modern notion of "country" is only a couple hundred years old. The Roman empire was the most unified state entity for a millenium. But their idea of unified was different from ours.
- ctoth 3y agoProbably when thinking about these sorts of things the important number is the total number of lived human years, and not the number of chronological years.