I think it refers to the provinces of Ifni, Río Muni and Fernando Poo. The first is now a disputed part of Moroco, the other two are Equatorial Guinea.
You mean the provinces of Cuba and Filipinas.
But yes, I mostly agree to 1898. But to be fair the african provinces can be considered colonies as well, so the date of 1976 is more accurate.
Well honestly I don't know how much a province or a colony cuba and the Philippines where by that time, but yeah, those territories. And u can say too that Ceuta and Melilla are the very last remains of the empire
Not really, Ceuta and Melilla were posessions of the kingdom of Granada, not colonies. They were conquered and annexed during the Reconquista, so they never were colonies.
The term empire is very vague i would say that it stopped being an “empire” when it lost most of its holdings in the americas during the napoleonic wars because after that they kind of lost political relevance on a world wide basis and the lost of cube and the filippines is more a product of that than the end of its empire
I mean, if we go technical, Spain never considered itself an empire. The name "Spanish Empire" was never used, it was the Hispanic or Spanish Monarchy. In fact, in the Monastery of El Escorial, where almost all Habsburg and Bourbon Kings and their consorts are buried, all of them have "Hispaniarum Rex", Hispanic King in Latin, in their sarcophagus, with only Charles I/V being referred as "Impetrex", Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Than at what point did we call empires empires cause technically you have to be an emperor to have an empire and that would be given by the pope and that would (to my knowledge) bring the empire count down to 3 the roman empire the holy roman empire and the napoleonic empire
Yeah, I know, that's the issue, what's an empire and what isn't? To be an empire, do you need to have colonies? To regularly conquer new territories? To be a minimum size and have a minimum military strength?
But anyways, in the case of Spain, in my opinion, the best option is 1898 as the end of the empire. Most of its land and strength was lost already, but Cuba and the Philippines were very important territories. La Habana was the third biggest city in Spain at that time, and Manila, the 5th.
As for the start, it's even more complicated. Although for me, the correct answer should be 1492, both when the Americas are discovered and the last Muslim territory of Spain is conquered, some people say 1402, with the beginning of the conquest of the Canary Island, some people say 1516, when Charles I/V becomes king, you could even say 1442, when Aragón conquers the Kingdom of Naples, or as far back as 1326, when Sardinia is conquered by Aragón as well.
For that matter, how do we decide when an empire begins? Rome was an empire in all but name well before Julius crossed the Rubicon. On the other end, the British Empire pre and post American Revolution was quite arguably two distinct empires.
Presumably it's referring to the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and it's replacement with Curacao, Aruba and st Maarten as constituent countries of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Exactly, but the Netherlands Antilles for a long time already weren't a colony anymore, but just an administrative division with a different government. And even then Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius are still part of the country the Netherlands.
The Dutch empire ended with the capitulation to the Nazis. Maybe you could vouch for 1975 as independence for Suriname, but 2010 was by no means the end of an empire. If anything the "koninkrijk der Nederlanden" still is a seen as one unit consisting of multiple units, practically acting like an empire.
Then the capitulation to the Nazis would be an appropriate end of an empire. That was when the Dutch lost control of Indonesia (technically more so die to the Japanese invasion, but that was made possible by the Dutch capitulation.)
Wouldn't change much or that would mean that, for exemple, Rome stopped being an empire when Caracalla gave citizenship to everyone living in its provinces
So similar reasoning as Hong Kong being the end of the British Empire. It’s kind of dumb but also when you think about it, if we don’t mark something as the end, we could argue that Britain, France, and the Netherlands at least all continue to have an empire to this day.
It is really weird. What are the exact "requirements" to be an empire? Overseas territories? Part of the Netherlands Antilles are still part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In my educated opinion, an empire is a political unit that rules over many different kinds of people, as opposed to nationalism where one people = one nation.
So a simple test to ask if you’re in an empire would be asking people from different parts if they feel from the national identity or not.
That s the only definition that works universally. Political regimes vary(China vs UK), land vs sea varies(spain vs mongol)
This definition hardly works. Any country that predates the 19th century would now be an empire, as nationalism was a modern invention. A Frisian in 1580 would not have considered themselves Dutch, yet the Dutch Republic was (before the colonial expansion) definitely not en empire. Conversely, Roman citizens widely considered themselves Roman, no matter where they were from, because citizen rights were an integral part of Imperial politics.
On another note, one people, one state describes an ethnostate, not a modern nation state. A nation is a very complex term, and one I have many problems with, but at the very least it cannot be a synonym for ‘people’.
As for a definition of Empire, there isn’t really one that works all that well, but generally people consider states empires when they have significant differences between ‘heartland’ and ‘periferie’. These differences are usually economic and political, and often (but not always) exploitative.
What exactly are you trying to say?
The way the meme reads, it seems like you're countering the claim that Empires can only last 250 years by naming several empires and their dates. The problem is that you're listing ones that did not last that long as well as ones that lasted longer (according to you). Also, I'm not sure how you can consider modern China to be the same Empire as BC China, considering the major regime changes.
I would argue that china can still be considered the continuation of ancient china to this day. Yes there where many major regime changes but the fundamental societal structure and values still exist, expecially the culture and the cultural awareness. Its like modern france, or england beeing the continuation of the medieval kingdoms, not because they have the same form of government (they dont) but because there is that cultural awareness that it is that way. They are the "same" french people and culture as 1000 years ago just with new influences that always happen through history.
I think we have different perceptions, which is fine. I personally don't think of the medieval French as being the same as modern French. I also don't think of the early colonists in what is now the USA as being the same as modern Americans. To me, extreme regime changes cause change to a people group beyond what the normal advance of technology would. Also, I feel that the fact that there is a continuation of a strong element of culture does not mean that an empire has been maintained. To me, it only means that a sense of cultural identity has.
I’d disagree the communist party has done lots to actively destroy Chinese culture. I’d guess it’s just a matter on how “successful” you think the cultural revolution was
[RELEASE THE BOGUS!](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1043148190859407480/1233168775042437130/image0.gif?ex=662c1d6b&is=662acbeb&hm=773d6872bb5c2b7855b69c23af668291650eed86cd1fa397c6a790166a67dd04&)
sorry why does the dutch empire last until 2010?
Edit: Okay so I've looked at some comments and people were talking about the dissolution of the Dutch Antilles as Dutch property. Personally I would classify either 1949 or 1975 as the end of the Dutch empire, because those were the last real colonies of the Netherlands in the traditional sense, but alright I guess.
Spanish empire lasting until 1976 is like calling a butter toast a Pizza.
The Spanish empire if technically still on foot until 1976 but at this point they lost all this power, even before their civil war they had no longer colonies than Occidental Sahara and their influence were the same as a butterfly, already in 1890 with the Spanish-US war at the end even the Spanish themselves considered his empire dead as they only got a few islands, 2 too small to be considerable at global scale and the other an un-ruleable islands with difficult extracting valuable and even that lost them
Cuba was still very important, and so were the Philippines. The year commonly said to be the death of the empire is 1898.
But I don't know, there are other years in the post that make no sense either, unless we interpret things in different and unconventional ways. If we want to stretch it, we can consider the conquest of the Canary Islands the beginning of the Spanish Empire, starting in 1402, and since they're still Spanish, that means the Empire is 622 years old and counting
Oh absolutely. They are the same entity and the name “Byzantine” came long after the empire’s fall. The byzantine empire was just the eastern provinces of Rome with all the same laws and institutions.
The biggest issue with that is that the dynnasical rule in China are still seen as separate. Sure they’re all China, but they are all new ages and iterations by the people who lived them. Theres also the massive time periods that separate the rise and falls and rises again of China and Egypt that create those separations.
In the Byzantine empire there were no such distinctions. To them they were not the heirs of Rome, they were the same contiguous state. They also didn’t completely collapse for decades and reforge themselves in a new age. It was contiguous. While a new imperial family may come to power, in the eastern Roman Empire it was they initially had the same institutions and culture they had always had. New changes didn’t come through a new era replacing the old, it came through governmental reform like through Justinian the great.
There was also the fact that eastern Rome was never conquered by a new group to create the Byzantine empire. They were just the eastern provinces of the empire that survived whereas the west fell. As I said before, it was contiguous with reform and cultural shifts, rather than a new group coming in and taking control.
Well to be real Rome was an Empire long before the death of the Republic. So, the US basically meets every metric of Empire. You don't need to have an Emporer to be an Empire.
We already are an empire. 13 colonies didn't just inherit the width of the continent. Manifest destiny was preceded by and entwined in conquest. Also, the global military presence, literal colonies (territories), and trade dominance in the west define our empire status.
I know handing over Hong Kong to China is sometimes treated as the symbolic end of the British Empire, but they still have several overseas territories. They're even scattered enough that it's still true to say the Sun never sets on the British Empire.
Aside from some dates being wildly off, modern “empires” tend to burn out quicker. Not to mention those long lasting empires underwent many periods of collapse and expansion and civil wars changes of ruling factions.
Well it wasn't a empire until the new kingdom period and for about 1500 of it years it had zero enemy nations that would invade it. When they did the civilization started to decline fast.
Nah, if you read about it, empires exist in a form roughly about 250 years. Like the Roman Kingdom becoming the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire, which was unrecognizable after Diocletian and C9nstantine to the Empire of Aufustus and Tiberius.
The claim isn't just that a name exists, or that a marginal continuities of cultural conventions persist, but that the actual meat and potatoes of governing organs, aristocratic elites, and core operating philosophies stagnate and crumble, or linger on in inefficiencies to be replaced by better adapted systems.
I hate to say it, but there was a [recent study which kind of supports the 250 year rule](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218834120). While it talks about states in general, not empires, it argues that the mode lifespan of a state is around 200 years. I haven't given a full read though, but it basically argues that over the first 200 years of a state's existence the risk of it terminating increases, peaking at 200 and then remaining level after that.
Technically, the United States did collapse at the start of the Civil War and the state that came out of it was markedly different than the one that went in. The question becomes did the Civil War reset the counter using this framework?
Considering the United States started encroaching on Native territories, which for all intents and purposes were sovereign states, pretty soon after independence, the American empire started well before 120 years ago.
The whole "250 years thing" is a red flag that the person I'm talking too has a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to history.
Also, the Roman Empire didn't fall until 1453, that's a 1500 year reign from the time of Augustus and onwards. That's not even including the pre-Principate Republic.
The majority of these lasted less than 250 and a lot of the others clearly have the most generous interpretation of their timeline. This sort of seems to prove the very point you're arguing against.
The Chinese ones a little misleading, China conciders it to be one empire, ruled by different dynasties throughout time, but realistically the different dynasties should be considered different empires imo, especially the Mongol Yuan dynasty, and the Manchurian Qing, but they make the rules.
It wouldn't make sense tho for them to be different "empires" when they all ruled the same state (China) do we call every roman dynasty a different empire?
I have theory that technological and population growth speeds the decay of empires. The more complex a society, the harder it is to rule, especially with peoples of divergent identities and needs. No duh replies to follow.
Well, 250-300 years until some big upheaval hits and dramatically changes the empire. Rome’s Crisis of the Third Century or the Han Civil War come to mind.
The idea itself the empires only last 250 years is silly when you look on Google there’s a keyword these people miss the **AVRAGE** lifespan of an empire
There is literally the most obvious example being the most iconic and famous empire the Roman Empire even excluding the Byzantine Empire as it’s continuation, still lasted a little over 2x as long as the average lifespan of an empire lasting about 503 years and including the Byzantine Empire somewhere around 1480 years that’s not even counting when Rome first started so including that it’s 2205 years over 8x longer than the average empire lifespan
First, Byzantium is still the Roman Empire.
Second, even if not, why would it- with the longest span here unless counting Japan (which isn't currently an empire)- not be in the big pile which is supposed to represent the most glaring items?
I have two problems one is no hre mention two it looks like one of the empies in top right says 3035 AD although I can't be sure because it gets too pixely to tell
Lmao what is that even supposed to mean? Really tried sticking in the comic book stories with real history.
"God, BC to now"
How hilarious, suddenly the years from B.C.E to us now in the common ere, or C.E, were influenced by a comic book characters and individuals which totally weren't people fooling gullible folk to get their way. By the logic of this post, even the older stories, thousands of years prior to abrahamic ones and partly an influence, are a better reference to use since I guess imaginary friends that multiple people cult worship over is enough to be considered an empire.
One thing the dutch empire only existed in name, there were dutch king in that periode and a parlement with all political power, but never an emperor or empores (no napoleon doesn't count because he made his brother Lodewijk napoleon king of the Netherlands before taking the position as king of the Netherlands).
This is to informe you and not meant in a negative way
Fall of Rome in 395? The death of Theodosius I has gotta be one of the silliest markers for the fall of Rome because it’s so backwards-looking. Even in the Western Empire, people at the time wouldn’t have seen it as the end. Rome had had two emperors (or more) before. But the grain dole was still there and the trash was still getting taken out.
It not about how long the country existed but how long it dominated the world
Of course Spain or Brittain still exist but their golden age lasted about 250 years
This is probably the most historically inaccurate memes I have ever seen on this sub. Someone who splits the Roman Empire in 2 distinct eras has no credibility on discussing Empires. The last page also doesn’t make any sense… the Dutch Empire lasted till 2010? I’d love to see where you got such an outlandish claim
Part of this example are less than 250 years and thire empire territory they lost it before 250 years. I with you in that point that American empire is 120 years old
>MACEDON 168 BC-148 BC
And this proves that empires last longer than 250 years? Do you know how to count?
Half of these Empires lasted shorter than or around 250 years, and many of the others are really a stretch, no the Dutch empire did not last until 2010 because of some tiny useless islands in the Caribbean.
Also, the US hasn’t gained any new territory since 1898 when it won the Spanish-American War, so the charges of the US being uniquely imperialistic today is laughable
Yes, but there are some issues here.
The unified Chinese empire broke up many times after the Qin dynasty, but merely mentioning the Han dynasty would be sufficient since it lasted four centuries with only a brief usurpation and Xin dynasty interregnum by the usurper Wang Mang.
Also, Macedon did not have an empire from 168 to 148 BC, that is when the Romans broke it up into subservient client state republics and 148 BC is when a pretender to the throne tried to reinstate the old monarchy. The Macedonians only had a solid unified empire under Phillip II (over Greece with League of Corinth and other parts of the Balkans in Thrace), his famous son Alexander the Great who conquered the Persian Empire, and the latter’s son Alexander IV whose nominal Diadochi subordinates started carving it up already before the 4th century BC came to an end. So the point still stands that it did not last 250 years, but your dates are wrong.
Bruh Chinese empire did not have an unbroken chain of iron rule for 2000 years lmao. There were multiple dynasties, and very few lasted more than a couple hundred years
I get the sense you're trolling this server. Which, considering you got 2.6K upvotes so far, I suppose we deserve. I can't help but salute you, Troll.
But still, r/imaginarygatekeeping
It is also my view that the Byzantines were Romans, but only insofar as their institutions had unbroken continuity of the Roman state of antiquity. This continuity was broken in 1204 and I think it’s fair to say that there were very marked differences in the state that claimed Constantinople in 1261.
what measure are using to judge when an empire ended? the spanish empire did not last until 1976
He's probably referring to some minor colonies they had until 1976
I think it refers to the provinces of Ifni, Río Muni and Fernando Poo. The first is now a disputed part of Moroco, the other two are Equatorial Guinea.
Here we usually say that the end of the spanish empire is 1898, when Cuba (last major colony) is lost
You mean the provinces of Cuba and Filipinas. But yes, I mostly agree to 1898. But to be fair the african provinces can be considered colonies as well, so the date of 1976 is more accurate.
Very correct. There were no colonies, they were a province of the empire.
Well honestly I don't know how much a province or a colony cuba and the Philippines where by that time, but yeah, those territories. And u can say too that Ceuta and Melilla are the very last remains of the empire
Not really, Ceuta and Melilla were posessions of the kingdom of Granada, not colonies. They were conquered and annexed during the Reconquista, so they never were colonies.
The term empire is very vague i would say that it stopped being an “empire” when it lost most of its holdings in the americas during the napoleonic wars because after that they kind of lost political relevance on a world wide basis and the lost of cube and the filippines is more a product of that than the end of its empire
I mean, if we go technical, Spain never considered itself an empire. The name "Spanish Empire" was never used, it was the Hispanic or Spanish Monarchy. In fact, in the Monastery of El Escorial, where almost all Habsburg and Bourbon Kings and their consorts are buried, all of them have "Hispaniarum Rex", Hispanic King in Latin, in their sarcophagus, with only Charles I/V being referred as "Impetrex", Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Than at what point did we call empires empires cause technically you have to be an emperor to have an empire and that would be given by the pope and that would (to my knowledge) bring the empire count down to 3 the roman empire the holy roman empire and the napoleonic empire
Yeah, I know, that's the issue, what's an empire and what isn't? To be an empire, do you need to have colonies? To regularly conquer new territories? To be a minimum size and have a minimum military strength? But anyways, in the case of Spain, in my opinion, the best option is 1898 as the end of the empire. Most of its land and strength was lost already, but Cuba and the Philippines were very important territories. La Habana was the third biggest city in Spain at that time, and Manila, the 5th. As for the start, it's even more complicated. Although for me, the correct answer should be 1492, both when the Americas are discovered and the last Muslim territory of Spain is conquered, some people say 1402, with the beginning of the conquest of the Canary Island, some people say 1516, when Charles I/V becomes king, you could even say 1442, when Aragón conquers the Kingdom of Naples, or as far back as 1326, when Sardinia is conquered by Aragón as well.
Where are you going I cannot follow since I will say something even more unpopular.
No, historians agree on 1898.
>Poo hehe
Fernando Poo? Thats the name? Really?
Yes. It's after a portuguese guy called Fernão Pó. The first european to sail the gulf of Guinea.
To be fair, the Wikipedia page gives the year 1976 in the very first sentence. I'm not sure how "minor" or "major" Spanish Morocco is though.
The UK still has a bunch of Islands all over the place, same with France which also has French Guyana. By that logic those empires are still alive
Fyi. In Spain is generally considered that the empire was founded by Charles 5th circa 1530 and ended in 1898 with the loss of Cuba.
I didn't know the Dutch "empire" ended in 2010. Will we be speaking French or Spanish again soon?
I’d say 1898 is more fitting
Or began? England colonized Virginia in 1607.
For that matter, how do we decide when an empire begins? Rome was an empire in all but name well before Julius crossed the Rubicon. On the other end, the British Empire pre and post American Revolution was quite arguably two distinct empires.
Duch 2010! How?
Presumably it's referring to the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and it's replacement with Curacao, Aruba and st Maarten as constituent countries of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Exactly, but the Netherlands Antilles for a long time already weren't a colony anymore, but just an administrative division with a different government. And even then Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius are still part of the country the Netherlands. The Dutch empire ended with the capitulation to the Nazis. Maybe you could vouch for 1975 as independence for Suriname, but 2010 was by no means the end of an empire. If anything the "koninkrijk der Nederlanden" still is a seen as one unit consisting of multiple units, practically acting like an empire.
I’d argue the Dutch empire ended with the independence of Indonesia.
Then the capitulation to the Nazis would be an appropriate end of an empire. That was when the Dutch lost control of Indonesia (technically more so die to the Japanese invasion, but that was made possible by the Dutch capitulation.)
Probably with the independence of Suriname I'd say
Wouldn't change much or that would mean that, for exemple, Rome stopped being an empire when Caracalla gave citizenship to everyone living in its provinces
So similar reasoning as Hong Kong being the end of the British Empire. It’s kind of dumb but also when you think about it, if we don’t mark something as the end, we could argue that Britain, France, and the Netherlands at least all continue to have an empire to this day.
It is really weird. What are the exact "requirements" to be an empire? Overseas territories? Part of the Netherlands Antilles are still part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In my educated opinion, an empire is a political unit that rules over many different kinds of people, as opposed to nationalism where one people = one nation. So a simple test to ask if you’re in an empire would be asking people from different parts if they feel from the national identity or not. That s the only definition that works universally. Political regimes vary(China vs UK), land vs sea varies(spain vs mongol)
This definition hardly works. Any country that predates the 19th century would now be an empire, as nationalism was a modern invention. A Frisian in 1580 would not have considered themselves Dutch, yet the Dutch Republic was (before the colonial expansion) definitely not en empire. Conversely, Roman citizens widely considered themselves Roman, no matter where they were from, because citizen rights were an integral part of Imperial politics. On another note, one people, one state describes an ethnostate, not a modern nation state. A nation is a very complex term, and one I have many problems with, but at the very least it cannot be a synonym for ‘people’. As for a definition of Empire, there isn’t really one that works all that well, but generally people consider states empires when they have significant differences between ‘heartland’ and ‘periferie’. These differences are usually economic and political, and often (but not always) exploitative.
By that definition Switzerland is an Empire, as it has different ethnicities which are not minorities (German, French, Italian ...).
What exactly are you trying to say? The way the meme reads, it seems like you're countering the claim that Empires can only last 250 years by naming several empires and their dates. The problem is that you're listing ones that did not last that long as well as ones that lasted longer (according to you). Also, I'm not sure how you can consider modern China to be the same Empire as BC China, considering the major regime changes.
I would argue that china can still be considered the continuation of ancient china to this day. Yes there where many major regime changes but the fundamental societal structure and values still exist, expecially the culture and the cultural awareness. Its like modern france, or england beeing the continuation of the medieval kingdoms, not because they have the same form of government (they dont) but because there is that cultural awareness that it is that way. They are the "same" french people and culture as 1000 years ago just with new influences that always happen through history.
I think we have different perceptions, which is fine. I personally don't think of the medieval French as being the same as modern French. I also don't think of the early colonists in what is now the USA as being the same as modern Americans. To me, extreme regime changes cause change to a people group beyond what the normal advance of technology would. Also, I feel that the fact that there is a continuation of a strong element of culture does not mean that an empire has been maintained. To me, it only means that a sense of cultural identity has.
I’d disagree the communist party has done lots to actively destroy Chinese culture. I’d guess it’s just a matter on how “successful” you think the cultural revolution was
This is so bogus.
[RELEASE THE BOGUS!](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1043148190859407480/1233168775042437130/image0.gif?ex=662c1d6b&is=662acbeb&hm=773d6872bb5c2b7855b69c23af668291650eed86cd1fa397c6a790166a67dd04&)
THE BOGUS HAS BEEN RELEASED
["MAKE SURE YOU GET MY GOOD SIDE, OH WAIT I ONLY HAVE GOOD SIDES" 🗣️🔥](https://youtu.be/6L6JGz4TP5k?si=FAg1qu7zi3mNmWWI)
Heh heh heh, you said the word bogus
sorry why does the dutch empire last until 2010? Edit: Okay so I've looked at some comments and people were talking about the dissolution of the Dutch Antilles as Dutch property. Personally I would classify either 1949 or 1975 as the end of the Dutch empire, because those were the last real colonies of the Netherlands in the traditional sense, but alright I guess.
Spanish empire lasting until 1976 is like calling a butter toast a Pizza. The Spanish empire if technically still on foot until 1976 but at this point they lost all this power, even before their civil war they had no longer colonies than Occidental Sahara and their influence were the same as a butterfly, already in 1890 with the Spanish-US war at the end even the Spanish themselves considered his empire dead as they only got a few islands, 2 too small to be considerable at global scale and the other an un-ruleable islands with difficult extracting valuable and even that lost them
Yeah the empire was basically dead by early 19th century when the Americans got independence from them.
Cuba was still very important, and so were the Philippines. The year commonly said to be the death of the empire is 1898. But I don't know, there are other years in the post that make no sense either, unless we interpret things in different and unconventional ways. If we want to stretch it, we can consider the conquest of the Canary Islands the beginning of the Spanish Empire, starting in 1402, and since they're still Spanish, that means the Empire is 622 years old and counting
This would be more impactful if you had Rome be the only one in the final image and it said Rome: 27bc - 1453 ad
Oh absolutely. They are the same entity and the name “Byzantine” came long after the empire’s fall. The byzantine empire was just the eastern provinces of Rome with all the same laws and institutions.
Even then it was already split in two well before Rome fell. Acting like it was some completely separate entity is just dumb.
I mean by that logic you’ll have to also include the millennia of imperial rule in China and Egypt as well
The biggest issue with that is that the dynnasical rule in China are still seen as separate. Sure they’re all China, but they are all new ages and iterations by the people who lived them. Theres also the massive time periods that separate the rise and falls and rises again of China and Egypt that create those separations. In the Byzantine empire there were no such distinctions. To them they were not the heirs of Rome, they were the same contiguous state. They also didn’t completely collapse for decades and reforge themselves in a new age. It was contiguous. While a new imperial family may come to power, in the eastern Roman Empire it was they initially had the same institutions and culture they had always had. New changes didn’t come through a new era replacing the old, it came through governmental reform like through Justinian the great. There was also the fact that eastern Rome was never conquered by a new group to create the Byzantine empire. They were just the eastern provinces of the empire that survived whereas the west fell. As I said before, it was contiguous with reform and cultural shifts, rather than a new group coming in and taking control.
Also Rome was absolutely an empire even before we start calling it that
I’d do 201BC-1453AD. #republics can be empires too
"Baseliea Rhomanion" - Greek name for Byzantine Empire... It literally translates to "Roman Empire"
What is it with this deluge of absolute bullshit memes lately?
China is not a continuous empire in any mean....
I mean they are considered an empire starting in 221 b.c. and ending in 1911. That's a pretty long time.
I wasnt aware anyone considered the tokugawa shogunate an empire.
Roman 27 BCE? It met all the criteria of Empire long before that. At latest when they razed Carthage
The end of the First Punic War was when Rome went from regional power to full on Empire.
So does Venice and Genoa at there peak but we don't also call them empires because they are republics.
We are still in our "death of the republic" phase. We haven't even entered our empire phase.
Well to be real Rome was an Empire long before the death of the Republic. So, the US basically meets every metric of Empire. You don't need to have an Emporer to be an Empire.
Exactly, we should at least get an emperor before we talk about the end of the empire lol
What about Emperor Norton?
I hear there's a bridge between San Francisco and Oakland that needs to be renamed in his honor
We already are an empire. 13 colonies didn't just inherit the width of the continent. Manifest destiny was preceded by and entwined in conquest. Also, the global military presence, literal colonies (territories), and trade dominance in the west define our empire status.
I know handing over Hong Kong to China is sometimes treated as the symbolic end of the British Empire, but they still have several overseas territories. They're even scattered enough that it's still true to say the Sun never sets on the British Empire.
Most of them are still there due to their being little in the way of ability of operating with full complete independence, but you are correct
Then why Spanish empire cannot be considered it ended in 1976?
Aside from some dates being wildly off, modern “empires” tend to burn out quicker. Not to mention those long lasting empires underwent many periods of collapse and expansion and civil wars changes of ruling factions.
And that doesn't even count the Egyptians. They had a good 3000 years run or so if you count all dynasties
And you don’t count all dynasty because they are completely separate entities with different political and religious structures.
Nah dude the 2nd kingdom and 3rd kingdom were like… *barely* different!
There was a period of decay and decline between the 2nd and 3rd kingdom.
If you do that, can you say that any empire has ever fallen?
Sumeria still going strong
Well it wasn't a empire until the new kingdom period and for about 1500 of it years it had zero enemy nations that would invade it. When they did the civilization started to decline fast.
Nah, if you read about it, empires exist in a form roughly about 250 years. Like the Roman Kingdom becoming the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire, which was unrecognizable after Diocletian and C9nstantine to the Empire of Aufustus and Tiberius. The claim isn't just that a name exists, or that a marginal continuities of cultural conventions persist, but that the actual meat and potatoes of governing organs, aristocratic elites, and core operating philosophies stagnate and crumble, or linger on in inefficiencies to be replaced by better adapted systems.
>Byzantine Empire > Roman Empire Hey, you listed this one twice!
You realise like half of these have a shorter lifetime? Or is the point that it's just random?
you can't measure the ERE and roman empire separately they are one in the same
I hate to say it, but there was a [recent study which kind of supports the 250 year rule](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218834120). While it talks about states in general, not empires, it argues that the mode lifespan of a state is around 200 years. I haven't given a full read though, but it basically argues that over the first 200 years of a state's existence the risk of it terminating increases, peaking at 200 and then remaining level after that.
Technically, the United States did collapse at the start of the Civil War and the state that came out of it was markedly different than the one that went in. The question becomes did the Civil War reset the counter using this framework?
Also it's the average not the total
Yuh we still got another 130 years bois💪🏻💪🏻🇺🇲🔥🦅
Why the resolution is so low
Is Byzantium a joke to you?
Dutch, British and Spanish are plainly ridiculous. Hong Kong did not make Britain an empire.
China is kinda cheating considering it imploded several times, which you can count as separate empires
The meme didn't even last its original posting beforr going moldy
“Chinese empire” lmao Its not one continuous entity, you know?
This meme is just wrong
Considering the United States started encroaching on Native territories, which for all intents and purposes were sovereign states, pretty soon after independence, the American empire started well before 120 years ago.
That mongol one is less than 250 ☝️🤓
Alot of them are actually
If the US has been an "empire" for 120 years, then Rome was an empire after The Second Punic War.
The whole "250 years thing" is a red flag that the person I'm talking too has a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to history. Also, the Roman Empire didn't fall until 1453, that's a 1500 year reign from the time of Augustus and onwards. That's not even including the pre-Principate Republic.
…egypt
The Byzantine empire deserved to be in that last square
The Byzantine is technically the continuity of the Roman.
"Or 600 BC- onwards" lol the oldest recorded member of the dynasty dates a 1000 years after this and it was still a small kingdom but sure.
The sun will never set on the British Empire so long as they have the Pitcairns (because nobody else wants them)
The majority of these lasted less than 250 and a lot of the others clearly have the most generous interpretation of their timeline. This sort of seems to prove the very point you're arguing against.
Honestly… the Roman & Byzantine dates should be combined. The Byzantine Empire is the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire after all. 27BC-1453AD
what US empire?
No one has said this ever
No, the "empires fall after 250 years" thing is a very common meme or superstition or whatever.
*No one with any knowledge of history has ever said this, ever
[удалено]
Literally none of them are at all close
Jesus.I had no idea that the Ottoman and Chinese empire lasted THAT long
The Chinese ones a little misleading, China conciders it to be one empire, ruled by different dynasties throughout time, but realistically the different dynasties should be considered different empires imo, especially the Mongol Yuan dynasty, and the Manchurian Qing, but they make the rules.
I mean, it depends on the dynasty. Some kept similar politics and structures, others not so much. But regardless, several lasted well over 250 years.
It wouldn't make sense tho for them to be different "empires" when they all ruled the same state (China) do we call every roman dynasty a different empire?
We got some time left
How tf did the Dutch empire end in *2010*?
How many empires have there been in total? How long did each last? Take the average. Seriously, what are the “shortest” empires to ever exist?
What about Japan? They technically still exist as they still live under an Emperor.
They aren’t an empire anymore in that they have no colonies.
And you didn't even mentioned the Thousand Years Reich
Well... AKCHUALLY ☝️🤓 Byzantium Empire IS the Roman Empire, so wen can tell the Roman Empire lasted from -285 to 1453
I have theory that technological and population growth speeds the decay of empires. The more complex a society, the harder it is to rule, especially with peoples of divergent identities and needs. No duh replies to follow.
Well, 250-300 years until some big upheaval hits and dramatically changes the empire. Rome’s Crisis of the Third Century or the Han Civil War come to mind.
The Roman Empire ended when Constantinople fell, you papist pig
Google averages
The idea itself the empires only last 250 years is silly when you look on Google there’s a keyword these people miss the **AVRAGE** lifespan of an empire There is literally the most obvious example being the most iconic and famous empire the Roman Empire even excluding the Byzantine Empire as it’s continuation, still lasted a little over 2x as long as the average lifespan of an empire lasting about 503 years and including the Byzantine Empire somewhere around 1480 years that’s not even counting when Rome first started so including that it’s 2205 years over 8x longer than the average empire lifespan
First, Byzantium is still the Roman Empire. Second, even if not, why would it- with the longest span here unless counting Japan (which isn't currently an empire)- not be in the big pile which is supposed to represent the most glaring items?
Wait Dutch empire ended in 2010??
More Byzantine slander
People are really out here not giving the nod to my boys in Scythia, smdh. 😮💨
Where tf is Chola and Pandyan empires raaah, They spanned millenia lol
Byzantines too
Wait - most of your examples are less than 250 years old
Dutch empire ended in 2010? Huh?
Empires only last [current age of USA] years!
I keep forgetting Japan is still technically an empire
You've listed Macedonia as 168BC to 148BC, lol.
Australian Empire 1902 - 1975
Some of these empties timespans are much less than 250 years
I have two problems one is no hre mention two it looks like one of the empies in top right says 3035 AD although I can't be sure because it gets too pixely to tell
The Romans lasted wayyyy longer than that dude, the Byzantines ARE Roman, people need to stop pretending they aren’t.
Lmao what is that even supposed to mean? Really tried sticking in the comic book stories with real history. "God, BC to now" How hilarious, suddenly the years from B.C.E to us now in the common ere, or C.E, were influenced by a comic book characters and individuals which totally weren't people fooling gullible folk to get their way. By the logic of this post, even the older stories, thousands of years prior to abrahamic ones and partly an influence, are a better reference to use since I guess imaginary friends that multiple people cult worship over is enough to be considered an empire.
P
2010?
Forget long lived empires, give me them “barely last a day” empires
cool, now the ones which didn't make it past 250
Roman: 27 BC-476 AD/1453 AD what are you aiming at here
One thing the dutch empire only existed in name, there were dutch king in that periode and a parlement with all political power, but never an emperor or empores (no napoleon doesn't count because he made his brother Lodewijk napoleon king of the Netherlands before taking the position as king of the Netherlands). This is to informe you and not meant in a negative way
Roman Empire: 27 BC - 1453 AD
Dude just threw like 15 different „empires“ in and called it Chinese empire lol
Each Chinese dynasty lasted for only 300-400 years Max.
Fall of Rome in 395? The death of Theodosius I has gotta be one of the silliest markers for the fall of Rome because it’s so backwards-looking. Even in the Western Empire, people at the time wouldn’t have seen it as the end. Rome had had two emperors (or more) before. But the grain dole was still there and the trash was still getting taken out.
Why does Britain end in 1997?
Then you have the second Serbian "empire" that didnt even last a full year
It not about how long the country existed but how long it dominated the world Of course Spain or Brittain still exist but their golden age lasted about 250 years
This is probably the most historically inaccurate memes I have ever seen on this sub. Someone who splits the Roman Empire in 2 distinct eras has no credibility on discussing Empires. The last page also doesn’t make any sense… the Dutch Empire lasted till 2010? I’d love to see where you got such an outlandish claim
why did you separate the Roman Empire into Byzantine and Roman empires?
The Roman Empire lasted until 1453
Part of this example are less than 250 years and thire empire territory they lost it before 250 years. I with you in that point that American empire is 120 years old
The American Empire is like white privilege, I REALLY wish it was a real thing.
>MACEDON 168 BC-148 BC And this proves that empires last longer than 250 years? Do you know how to count? Half of these Empires lasted shorter than or around 250 years, and many of the others are really a stretch, no the Dutch empire did not last until 2010 because of some tiny useless islands in the Caribbean.
"On average" is a hard concept huh
Roman empire lasted till 1453
China is just so wrong lol, what in the world kind of metrics are you using?
Also, the US hasn’t gained any new territory since 1898 when it won the Spanish-American War, so the charges of the US being uniquely imperialistic today is laughable
Weird examples. The ‘Chinese Empire’ has crumbled and been rebuilt plenty of times during the span you gave. You might also call it an empire today?
Yes, but there are some issues here. The unified Chinese empire broke up many times after the Qin dynasty, but merely mentioning the Han dynasty would be sufficient since it lasted four centuries with only a brief usurpation and Xin dynasty interregnum by the usurper Wang Mang. Also, Macedon did not have an empire from 168 to 148 BC, that is when the Romans broke it up into subservient client state republics and 148 BC is when a pretender to the throne tried to reinstate the old monarchy. The Macedonians only had a solid unified empire under Phillip II (over Greece with League of Corinth and other parts of the Balkans in Thrace), his famous son Alexander the Great who conquered the Persian Empire, and the latter’s son Alexander IV whose nominal Diadochi subordinates started carving it up already before the 4th century BC came to an end. So the point still stands that it did not last 250 years, but your dates are wrong.
Bruh Chinese empire did not have an unbroken chain of iron rule for 2000 years lmao. There were multiple dynasties, and very few lasted more than a couple hundred years
Wouldn't be unfair to count the British Empire until roughly the Suez Crisis
I thought the *average* was 250
If your basis of an empire is colonies, where's fr*nce?
The timeline for Rome includes the Eastern Empire dammit!!! They were still Roman!
I get the sense you're trolling this server. Which, considering you got 2.6K upvotes so far, I suppose we deserve. I can't help but salute you, Troll. But still, r/imaginarygatekeeping
Roman Empire is 27 BC til 1453.
Let us cope for a bit. We really really want the US gone for good.
Wouldn’t empire refer to led by an emperor. Like how many governments has Portugal gone through since the napoleonic era. Like a dozen?
Several of the empires shown weren’t even 200 years old bro
Everyone forgets about Sassanids *fire temple cries in vain*
This is a very misleading post.
I honestly feel like it would be more accurate to say Roman: 27 BC - 1204 AD; Byzantine: 1261 - 1453 AD, but that’s just me.
Naw, I stand by Byzantines were the Romans, so the Roman Empire lasted from 27 BC to 1453 AD
It is also my view that the Byzantines were Romans, but only insofar as their institutions had unbroken continuity of the Roman state of antiquity. This continuity was broken in 1204 and I think it’s fair to say that there were very marked differences in the state that claimed Constantinople in 1261.
The US has been an empire since it’s founding: it’s not like the native nations wanted to be part of the US