Org Mobile Site
Thread: 1000 years+ organizations
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?
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)
est 979AD
San Marino also claims that its parliament dates to 301 AD (Wiki)
...pirates
They always come back for more booty.
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?
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".
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm:
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.Since the Japanese Imperial Family is/was considered divine, it should count as "religiously affiliated".
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.
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII:
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?
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?
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
Originally Posted by Derfasciti:
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
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.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
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
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
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.
KraxisThe 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.
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.
Originally Posted by King Kurt:
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by King Kurt:
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.
Technically yes.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.
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).
Originally Posted by KrooK:
Poland exist over 1000 year
starting from 965
and of course Rome
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.Poland exist over 1000 year
starting from 965
and of course Rome
Originally Posted by KrooK:
Poland exist over 1000 year
starting from 965
and of course Rome
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.Poland exist over 1000 year
starting from 965
and of course Rome
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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.
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.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.
I read somewhere that Iran had the longest running dynasty in history, so I looked it up in Wikipedia.
Cordially,
Originally Posted by :
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).
Not trying to politicize this thread, but that's pretty stable for a country that is allgedly trying to destabilize the region.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,
Originally Posted by rotorgun:
Not trying to politicize this thread, but that's pretty stable for a country that is allgedly trying to destabilize the region.
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.Not trying to politicize this thread, but that's pretty stable for a country that is allgedly trying to destabilize the region.
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.
Originally Posted by lars573:
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.
The term "Sacrum Imperium Romanum" wasn't used until Otto the Great, though I'm not sure about the date. Till then it was simply "emperor". At any rate, though the structure and titelature of the german empire evolved over time, we can trace the history of the HRE back to the treaty of Verdun.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.
Originally Posted by :
I'm surprised no one has mentioned universities, though I do wonder if they fit into "social, economic or political".
Good point about the universities. I forgot about them.I'm surprised no one has mentioned universities, though I do wonder if they fit into "social, economic or political".
Another thing that might deserve mention is the legalistic works of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (or rather that of his minister Tribonian). Established in its final version in 533 it was used in Greece in different translations till 1946, and it was used widely throughout Europe as law governing international relations till replaced by national codices, as a primitive form of international law you might say.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO