Printable View
are there any organizations that have been continously active over at least a 1000 year span that have not been religiously affiliated?
i.e. excluding things like the papacy, monastic orders etc are there social, economic or political organizations that have lasted as long?
Hmm... maybe the Manx Parliament (Tynwald)
est 979AD
San Marino also claims that its parliament dates to 301 AD (Wiki)
...pirates:inquisitive: They always come back for more booty.
The Imperial Family of Japan could be considered such (and the Imperial throne, as a result).
Aren't they supposed to descend from Yamato, who ruled during the Tang dynasty in China or something?
Since the Japanese Imperial Family is/was considered divine, it should count as "religiously affiliated".
It's not a religion, though, or a monastic order, which I believe is what he's making a point about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
It's not that different from the Medieval Europe's concept of Divine Rights, after all. The Imperial Family should be considered as much of a symbolic/political institution as the Queen of Great Britain.
Beer?War? :inquisitive:
The monarchies are considered to be the oldest.
There are all the Pacific islands and the Americas that are believed to have had a very similar life over a long period of time. Until they were "discovered" of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
I think they're supposed to be descended from Ameratsu the Sun-Goddess. The first emperor was Jimmu. Yamamoto was a naval admiral in ww2:book:
In that case, the Monarchy of Great Britain has existed for over 1000 years, after several amalgamations of lesser monarchies (the various English kingdoms, the Picts, the Scots, until 1603 and the Union of the Crowns).Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
He said Yamato. Which is a period of early Japanese history. It's was when the Imperial family ruled from Yamato province. Jimmu is more legend than historical personage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfasciti
Not really. The "Monarchy" of Great Britian really only existed when the Kingdoms of England and Scotland are united, and even then it has to be taken into account that there are many dynasties that occupy the position of leadership. The Japanese Imperial Family is a unique case in that plausible claims of direct descent last through more than a thousand years (the legend being, in my opinion, longer than the truth would likely be).Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
That's not really something of a contest, though, considering the cost. They only survive because their lack of power when the Age of Shoguns come about. A few Emperors who actively tried to restore their powers mostly faced defeat, often by the betrayal of their own "champions." Go-Daigo's Kammu Restoration being one of the most famous, ushering eventually the Ashikaga shoguns as Ashikaga Takauji, one of his generals, abandoned the failing "Restoration."
Even then they risked extinction, or simply had dynastic disputes, quite a few times.
At the treaty of Verdun Charlemagne's empire was divided in 3, the most eastern kingdom of wich would expand and would later call itself the Holy Roman Empire (I know what you think...but claiming divine right isn't exactly unique to the HRE) and would last to 1806 when it was disbanded after repeatedly being defeated by Napoleon.
Poland exist over 1000 year
starting from 965
and of course Rome
The Danish monarchy is considered second only to the Japanese in age, going back to Gorm the Old (though we know his father was also king of Denmark) who we hear of in 936 (but since his name was already 'the Old' chances are he had been king for quite some time).
How much older the dynasty really is, we don't know. It could be his father alone or perhaps many more.
While the royal line takes a few bends along the way, it is always the same family, if at times it is connect from the extended family.
The current queen Margret II can claim that she has the blood of Gorm in her veins as she is a direct decendant.
So perhaps we should cut royal bloodlines and monarchies from the list (but nobility could be an interesting addition).
Chances are that we can find a few guilds or something that might still be alive.
KraxisQuote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
What a fascinating fact - does that mean that since 936 Denmark has not been conquered to such an extent to bring about regieme change? In England, we usualy go back to William the Conquerer - 1066 and all that - but, to be fair we have had a couplle of changes where the line/ link is preety tenuious - James the First and William of Orange principally.
If Denmark has achieved that, then it is some achievment in deed, especially for a country so strategicaly placed at the mouth of the Baltic - very much a North/ South/ East/West crossroads.:2thumbsup:
That is comparable with Scotland and England. Queen Elizabeth II can claim descent from Fergus, 1st King of the Scots of Dalriada (and through him to the Irish High Kings, I think, though it is a bit rough) as well. All lines have tenuious points when several people claim, or no-one claims, like Robert the Bruce, William of Orange, George I.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
I'm surprised no one has mentioned universities, though I do wonder if they fit into "social, economic or political".
Al-Azhar University in Cairo was founded in 971. One could make an argument that it was set up initially as a religious institution. However, that's not the case with Oxford (about 1070), and the University of Bologna (1088). Not quite a thousand years in the case of the latter two, but quite close.
Well, I don't know to what "not been religiously affiliated" refers to exactly, but with a loose interpretation of the the phrase, the Roman Empire/ Eastern Roman Empire in its various incarnations comes easily to mind. 1204 brought a somewhat brief interruption, but this could also be a point of debate.
I don't know if Al-Azhar could be considered a non-religious institution, especially in its earlier days. Maybe Plato's Academy should be a candidate as well, though it lasted definately less than 1000 years.
EDIT: Ah, sorry, just saw your edit:)
hehe, yes, I am an edit-aholic :) Had the same thought about Al-Azhar after I read over my post.
I think 57 years is enough to constitute an end to the empire, regardless of whether it begun again afterwards. Still, even with that considered the Roman Empire lasted a hell of a long time. If you included the Roman Republic/Kingdom it lasted even longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
Technically yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
There was a couple of small interruptions. For instance when German merchants basically BOUGHT the country over a number of years (late 1300s), but the next king bought or recaptured it again. And it lasted only a few years.
Then there was a short period where the nobles simply didn't elect a king (early 1500s), and the country degenerated into something close to anarchy for a few years before the nobles elected a king (which had been the candidated they had rejected).
And the country was occupied a few times, but never truly conquered (Copenhagen had a nasty habit of resisting successfully), so it managed to be able to settle for rather unpleasant peace agreements, rather than face annexation.
The only time you can say Denmark didn't have a king of the line, what when Magnus the Good (Norwegian) ruled from 1042-47. But Cnut the Great's nephew by his sister, Sweyn Estridsen takes over (the two had even fought a series of battles over the throne), and the line is thus kept alive generationwise. Meaning each geneartion has had one king or more on the throne (Cnut's own son Hardecnut had ruled Denmark as well so it was already set, but Sweyn continued the line).
Kraxis
That is fascinating - so that means that Denmark has had, with a couple of small exceptions, about a 1,000 years of peace.
Do you think that the countrie's Viking exploits in the 8th to 10th centuries got all the aggression out of the national psyche!!:2thumbsup:
1000 years of peace is not exactly the correct term...~;)
Denmark has been at war with just about everyone in Europe, and has had significant amounts of land occupied several times.
Peace? No. Danish rule for 1000 years? Yes.
There hasn't been a Sweyn Forkbeard, Cnut the Great or William the Conqueror that conquered the land from the locals. That is the main difference.
Poland's always been eaten up by other countries in this period. Austria-Hungary, Tsarist Russia, Prussia, then divided again after defeat of Napoleon, then annexed by Tsarist Russia or Prussia til WWI. Freedom for a bit, then eaten up by Nazis and Soviets. Poland is then recreated, after shifting a lot to the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
Incorrect. 965 to 1795 is not 1000 years, your 270 years short. Congress Poland doesn't count as it's part of Russia. Grand Dutchy of Warsaw isn't even called Poland, and it's a French puppet. Even if you include the 88 years of post WW1 Poland you only get 918 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
It might be better to say that the institution of Holy Roman Emperor and King in Germany (which is what the full title was) lasted for 1000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I read somewhere that Iran had the longest running dynasty in history, so I looked it up in Wikipedia.
Not trying to politicize this thread, but that's pretty stable for a country that is allgedly trying to destabilize the region.Quote:
Persia underwent a revival under the Safavid dynasty (1502-1736), the most prominent figure of which was Shah Abbas I. Some historians credit the Safavid dynasty for founding the modern nation-state of Iran. Iran's contemporary Shia character, and significant segments of Iran's current borders take their origin from this era (e.g. Treaty of Zuhab).
Cordially,
The Safavids were strong. As comtemporaries and the main Eastern rival of the Ottomans, they actually did pretty well; especially when one considers the fact that just about almost everyone in the Family were imbeciles stuck-in-the-harems to one point or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Though they fell long before the colonial powers began to challenge Iranian interests, the decline of Iran which eventually culminated in the Islamic Revolution could actually be blamed quite justly upon the colonial powers; powers like Great Britain and Russia. Safavids were a very different bunch from the fanatical Mullahs we have ruling Iran today, even though the Mullahs certainly did paint a pretty rosy picture on the country's long and illustrious past, and with the Safavids a prominent part of it.
Their culture was interesting, too, if not quite as extensively studied as the Classical cultures.
Very interesting AntiochusIII. I aslo realize that they came along long before the overthrow of the colonial powers in the 1950's. That was a result of failure to work with the nationalist movements to protect the oil companies' investments there. Until the fall of the last Shah, one could argue that Iran had the longest run of a monarchy in history-something like 2500 years. That is an accomplishment in anyone's book.
Thanks,
Not really, most dynasties were completely different, and the state of Iran seized to exist altogether in quite a few instances.Quote:
Until the fall of the last Shah, one could argue that Iran had the longest run of a monarchy in history-something like 2500 years.