well lets play it this way. Roman Republic was 509BC (end of roman monarchy) to 27BC = only 482 years and the Roman Empire is 27BC to 476AD (conquest of rome by odacer) = 449 years, so the Byzantine empire at 874 years has that easily beat.
I’m not familiar enough with Byzantine history to judge if there was violent coups in that period that would disqualify it, anyone?
There could be grey areas, but at a minimum, if there was some accepted system for challenges, the current boss thought that the challenge was legitimate, and everyone accepted the challenge and transfer of power as legitimate, then I think it would not be a transition by violence for the purposes of the OP. (Just as a JFK’s assassination was not a transition by violence; nor would using legal methods to impeach and remove an elected leader be a transition by violence, even if the elected leader was eventually sentenced to death, be a transition by violence).
Ah yes. my mistake.
Note that Nepal seems to have had a continuous government since 1768, and Bhutan arguably since 1616, depending on whether or not one classifies the upheavals in the late 19th century as failed revolutions.
Still, neither seems to approach Sweden as noted above.
I just came here to say Fuck San Marino. That is all.
I don’t think the Aborigines constitute a “state” as they existed prior to First Contact, but it would certainly be the case that many empires have in the past lasted a very long time. And the Roman Republic last a good five hundred years or so before being (violently) turned into an empire.
I assume you’re counting from Octavian’s (later Augustus) accession to power as part of the Second Triumvirate in 43 BCE to the fall of the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE. But your arithmetic is off by a year, seeing how we went from 1 BCE to 1 CE, so it’s only 1495 years, and in any case there would have been many events that reset the clock during this time. Someone mentioned the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, for example.
I went for the earliest date I could possibly argue so chose 44BC when the senate declared JC dictator (I was very careful to take account of there being no year zero - I know what this board is like!).
Bloody 4th Crusade!
(I did say I was doing a lot of fudging).
Still, if the OP allows, it would be interesting to consider historical examples.
Not to mention that in the last ten years, Nepal’s government has had a rather violent transition of power with a mass murder in the royal family, the dissolution of the monarchy, and other major governmental changes.
In addition to the 4th Crusade, I’m not sure I would consider the Eastern Empire to be the same nation as the Western Empire, especially not since they coexisted for a number of years. I would argue that at the time the Empire split, the Western Empire continued on the clock that started with Julius and/or Augustus Caesar, while the Eastern Empire started a new clock.
Either that, or it was one Empire with co-rulers, one in the west and the other in the east.
But the violence was not part of the transition of power. The murder was akin to the Kennedy assassination, in that it did not change the form of government, and the ceding of power by the monarchy would be analogous to that of the British monarch.
The co-rulers existed together for a while (four actually, with two Augustus’ and two Caesars), but Constantine took control of the whole shebang and moved the capitol to Greece. His successors lost control of Italy and Western Europe, but it could be argued that they were rebellious provinces with pretensions of grandiure rather than a continuation of Rome.
Either way, I think it would be hard to find a period 200 years of the Roman empire that did not have a change or emperor by violent means (look a the year of four emperors for goodness sake!!).
Jonathan
Honorius and Arcadius agreed to divide the empire between them, so it wasn’t really a matter of “rebellious provinces”…with a few exceptions (Joannes, Majorian, Glycerius, Romulus Augustus), the Eastern Roman emperors recognized the Western Roman emperors as coequal.
I was confusing the tetrarchy with the final split. Still, Constantinople was the official capitol prior to the final split, so it could be argued that the East was a valid continuation and the West was a splitting off. If Queen Marry I had moved the government of the British Isles to Dublin and then later England, Ireland, and Wales had split, which would be the continuing government and which new ones?
I still think the frequent violent changes of emperor disqualify either incarnation of Roman Empire.
Jonathan
The historical question is a very interesting one, and I think it’s worth considering it as a separate related question, with the connecting question of whether any current government can hold a candle to historical governments in this contest.
I was being snarky about the Roman Empire, since I didn’t feel like trying to puzzle out your dates, Petrobey. I think your fudging goes pretty far beyond what I’m comfortable with, however, given what I understand is a history of multiple violent overthrows of the Roman Empire’s government by rival wannabe rulers. Even if they kept the form basically the same, the fact of a coup resets the clock AFAIAC. Still, there may be a period in which the Roman Empire remained essentially the same government without any violent overthrow–would anyone care to set up some specific dates for this question?
WormThe Red, you’re right of course about post 67. Thanks for pointing that out! Britain maintains the lead.
Historically, I wonder if Egypt ever had a period of straight-up nonviolent succession that might get it in the running. What about China–were any of the dynasties relatively free of coupish violence?
Daniel
I’m not an expert, but I don’t agree. The Kennedy assassination removed one person, rather than a whole cluster, which is a crucial difference in degree. Further, I was under the impression that the monarchy had since (in an unrelated move) renounced power altogether. In Britain, parliament has played an important role in government since the middle ages, well before the cut-off date in 1688. In Nepal, the monarchy was absolute until relatively recently and now has no power at all. Even if the steps are non-violent, I think that’s different enough to disqualify it.
I have already suggested, Byzantine Empire / Eastern Roman Empire from moving of capital to Constantinople 330 AD to fall of constantinople and splitting into four pieces during the Fourth Crusade 1204 = 874 years.
The form of the empire as an absolute monarchy was established by then and the Byzantine Civil service was constantly in existence this whole time. There may be violent changes in dynasty that would preclude this, but I can’t find any with a quick search.
Incidentally Byzantine Empire 874 years also beats out Ancient Egypt as each of the First Kingdom / Middle Kingdom / New Kingdom periods is less than 800 years and the events of each intermediate period would seem to fit “violent change”
It’s not different enough according to the rules I’ve set up. There was an act of violence, yes, but the actors did not assume power.
Coremelt, if there were no violent dynastic changes during that period, it’d qualify. However, according to Wikipedia, the emperor in 602 was Maurice (“moe” to his buddies), and he was murdered by Phocas, who became the ruler. That’s just from a very quick scan of the article, and that constitutes a violent act in which the actor took over reins of government.
Daniel
Nepal was an absolute monarchy with no type of parliament until 1990. Since 1990, it has become a republic with no monarchy whatsoever.
In my defence I present you Barack Obama.
Seriously. In the stupid debate over whether he was ‘really’ black, one of the main arguments was that was what he self-identified as. The Byzantine Empire never called itself that. It was always the Roman Empire and its citizens Romans, with an unbroken imperial history going back to Augustus and Julius Caesar. (In fact the modern Greeks will still sometimes talk of themselves as ‘Romios’ or Roman).
If you accept that the numerous coups, civil wars and murders were seen as legitimate forms of succession, and that the thrice-cursed 4th Crusade merely put the Empire into exile for a time, then we have a excellent candidate. I admit that there is a whole factory of fudge going on, though.
Actually, as Constantine XI Palaiologos is not in fact dead, but merely sleeps in a marble cave beneath Constantinople, ready to retake the city for Christendom, we could argue that the Empire yet endures . . .