What is the Longest lasting Empire in History?

Salah

Forum Staff
Oct 2009
23,284
Maryland
#2
China and Iran have both been ruled by a succession of dynasties that are (at least sometimes) considered totally different entities. The Ottoman and British empires only lasted a fraction of as long as Rome's (27 BCE - 1461 CE).
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#3
At what point did the Eastern Roman Empire stop being an empire??? Surely before 1461??? How do we define an empire?? What's the difference between an empire and a kingdom???
 

Wenge

Ad Honoris
Apr 2011
10,429
Virginia
#4
China has been a part of two empires; The Mongolian and The Manchurian but I do not believe that other than that China can be considered to have been an empire.
 
Jun 2012
2,972
Brazil
#5
I bilieve that roman empire was the one with the longest duration

The empire of Tiwanaku had a very long term
Over the year 400 AD as the city began to expand their domains until its fall in the mid-12th century around 700 years quite impressive.
 
Jan 2014
1,905
Florida
#7
China and Iran have both been ruled by a succession of dynasties that are (at least sometimes) considered totally different entities. The Ottoman and British empires only lasted a fraction of as long as Rome's (27 BCE - 1461 CE).
The Roman Empire started in 241 BC when Rome acquired Sicily at the end of the First Punic War. The imperial system of government started when Octavian was declared Augustus in 27 BC.
At what point did the Eastern Roman Empire stop being an empire??? Surely before 1461??? How do we define an empire?? What's the difference between an empire and a kingdom???
I think that the difference between an emperor and a monarchy is that an empire can theoretically appoint anyone to be his successor, whereas a monarchy is theoretically succeeded by a family member.
 
Jul 2012
2,600
Somewhere
#8
the British empire has to be one of the longest lasting empires. it started in the 10th century and is still technically going on. Once Great Britain gives up all the territories then the sun has set on the British empire.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#9
I think that the difference between an emperor and a monarchy is that an empire can theoretically appoint anyone to be his successor, whereas a monarchy is theoretically succeeded by a family member.
That definition would rule out the British Empire of the 19th century.

I think an empire is where different nations or formerly independent political groups are rule by one autocratic legally recognized ruler. (If they seize power by force, they are recognized after the fact). That is why then the Chinese ruler was called an emperor. Even in the Tang, there were a few non Han ethnic people under Chinese rule, and the original Chinese empire was formerely composed of different independent Chinese nations. While nations usually of different ethnic backgrounds, sometimes you can have separate nations with the same language and similar culture - for example, Germany and Austria. I think the Kaiser of Germany was called an emperor, since the Kaiser's Germany original made up of separate countries.

An empire, like Rome, rules over several nations, while a king rules over a nation. In some cases, they do both - Queen Victoria was Queen of England, but Empress of India. And the reason the Queen of Britain isn't called the Empress of Britain, is that she is Queen of Scotland, England, and Wales in her own right. She is descended from both the Kings of Scotland and England. (Northern Ireland Protestants are mostly descended from transpanted Scots and English, and if it weren't for them, she wouldn't rule over any part of Ireland.)
 

Similar History Discussions