Had there ever been a successful revolution where the government being revolted against was not already...

I'm aware of that, I already said it wasn't exactly the answer to OP. It's a silly question in itself because nations don't exist in a vacuum and is always being influenced by outside factors.

The only reason I said Japan was close during that time period because it was an isolationist state and still there was political upheaval and it was on the verge of revolt.

But still, it took the appearance of foreigners to make the situation explode which disqualifies it from OPs question.

The French Revolution?

The country going bankrupt in wars and proxy wars against Britain were a major factor in what started the revolution.

internal, but still foreign as different states within china could be considered kingdoms to eachother

>designing your question to specifically ignore the most successful revolution in history because you're obviously british and blaming "muh french" for British failure in the americas

The changing of Chinese dynasties could hardly be labeled as revolutions.

All the government systems were left in place, the rulers simply changed. It'd be like saying a revolution occurred in America every time the majority in congress changed parties.

The Iranian Revolution was pretty close to this.

>The changing of Chinese dynasties could hardly be labeled as revolutions.

The violent overthrow of one government and its replacement with another isn't a revolution to you?

>All the government systems were left in place,

That is generally untrue.

>t'd be like saying a revolution occurred in America every time the majority in congress changed parties

Difference in government is not the same thing as difference in regime.

All successful revolutions have been done thanks to the assistance (knowingly given or not) of foreign powers exerting some sort of force or influence on the incumbent government

Augustus Caesar says hi.

>That is generally untrue.

Name significant changes in the scholar bureaucracy during dynasty changes.

>Repubican Rome was not being weaken by the many border crisis that required them to give more and more power to senator-generals to solve

What?

Well, for starters, the Shang and Chou dynasties didn't even have it. The Qin dynasty didn't draw their bureaucrats from a Confucian-based scholar-elite, but primarily from their military commanders. The Han moved back to the semi-feudal system the Chou had, with quasi-independent vassal kingdoms over huge chunks of China, and their Confucian bureaucracy only controlling Imperial areas. (The Qin tried to do away with such things, one of the reasons they didn't last all that long). The "classical" system of drawing the bureaucracy from the ranks of people who passed rigorous exams on both civil administration and Confucian thought; alongside extremely minimal local government, only originated with the Tang, which is literally millennia after the first recorded historical dynasties. Even then, you see different dynasties drawing the bulk of their people from different regions or religions that they felt the most secure in.

That is completely different from foreign powers exerting force on the incumbent government, which was far more influenced by the last civil war than anything outside of Rome's borders.

The Kimbri and Teuton invasions directly led to Marius removing the citizenship requirement to join the legions, which is what destroyed the Republic.

How is creating war on the borders not foreign powers exerting influence on the government? They're literally forcing them to do something by action of their own.

>The Second Triumvirate was in power when Marius was Consul.

Do you know what a "government" is in the context of political science? Because your phrasing indicates that no, you do not.

Anything happening at some point in a polity's history is not influence on that government. There were no meaningful external wars (but significant internal ones) during the Second Triumvirate, which was the "incumbent government" that collapsed and eventually lead to Octavian rising as Imperator. Ergo, the statement that foreign wars exerted influence on the incumbent government is wrong.

>most of population under poverty and the Xa acting like a idiot

user, the first step of every revolution is make the ruler force distracted for another problems.

Which wasn't the actions of another nation's government.

Does ANYTHING happen in a vacuum?

It's called outer space retard

>hurr durr im so anti science i only educate myself in the humanities and aristotle said nature abhors a vacuum

Homeine arrived from France.
Roman empire wasnt centralised state.

>Roman empire wasnt centralised state.

So?

The Big Bang.

Revolutions can be considered as struggle of pretty independent parts of Empire for ritual leadership.

Or, since the triumvirs were all based in Italy and primarily struggled there, it could be considered the revolution of a state, just not a modern westphalian one.

Especially since it became far more of a centralized state due to what Augustus started doing.

We havent enough information about geopolitical changes of Empire. But the only reason for centralisation is wars. So it was possible only 2 modes.
1) Strong barbariens - WE SHOUD LIVE - centralisation. But strong barbariens are factor of politics. They were hardly capable to send spies, but rude power was also valuable.
2) Peace. OUR WONDERFUL PROVINCE DONT WANT TO BE RULED BY YOU, EMPEROR-MOTHERFUCKER.

>We havent enough information about geopolitical changes of Empire. But the only reason for centralisation is wars.

Da fuck you on about? The primary reason for centralization is to enhance the power of the sovereign (or whatever institution you have instead of one) vying for power internally vis a vis the local counterpart. The primary reason for centralization is an increase in education, as that provides a new corps of people who are capable of administering the state but also don't have independent power bases.

>1) Strong barbariens - WE SHOUD LIVE - centralisation. But strong barbariens are factor of politics. They were hardly capable to send spies, but rude power was also valuable.
2) Peace. OUR WONDERFUL PROVINCE DONT WANT TO BE RULED BY YOU, EMPEROR-MOTHERFUCKER.

I can't even tell what you're trying to say, in no small part because your spelling is atrocious.

In any event, the pressures that lead towards Empire weren't fear of external barbarians, but fear of internal oppression and gridlock from the already there senatorial class. That's who was being overthrown, not fear of some attack out of Germany or from the Parthians.

Bigger country - more internal conflicts. The only reason for local leaders to stop it and confess rise of power of central government - war against FOREIGN enemy.
No strong barbariens - no consolidation.

>but still foreign as different states within china could be considered kingdoms to eachother
China is not the holy roman empire,

>Bigger country - more internal conflicts. The only reason for local leaders to stop it and confess rise of power of central government - war against FOREIGN enemy.

That is completely ridiculous and not historically supported. Generally, centralized power advanced when it could advance based on social conditions within the country, not as collective reactions to external threats. Poland didn't get its act together when its neighbors started partitioning. China was hardly fearing its neighbors in the early Ming Era.

>No strong barbariens - no consolidation.

Except for when it does happen, like in the aforementioned example of Rome, which saw its greatest centralization of internal power at a time when the external barbarians were barely a blip on the radar.

The American Revolution isn't actually that far off, in the context of it's being limited to the American continent.

The British regulars were actually the first "foreign" governmental influence, the revolutionaries were taking action against their local governments. The colonial authorities were to a large degree autonomous, given the fact of the distance between them and GB.

Every Chinese dynasty post-han kept the meme Three Departments and Six Ministries. They only added shit on it over time. Furthermore the only reason why the T'ang is considered the beginning of Bureaucracy was because the prior dynasties had to deal with the remnants of Feudal China, like the Han. But even then the meme meritocracy was already present.

Furthermore the Mandate of Heaven is literally big on continuity rhetorics.
>Ok there's a realm.
>Ruler of realm has mandate so long as he does his job.
>If the people are unhappy, and auspicious signs show heaven's disfavor = mandat is revoke.
>Realm must look for new dude to be Emperor.
Only time this was ever different was under the Yuan Dynasty, as the Yuan Emperors were also Great Khans.

And since revolutions are all about the COMPLETE overhaul of ruling & governing systems - down to the rhetoric- Chinese didn't have revolutions until 1911. They had dynastic successions.

Though in that case I think the transition between theocratic Shang and feudal Zhou states was revolutionary. But the Shang considered it foreign invasion by the Zhou state and all the allied princes they managed to bring against the Shang.

Roman Empire had some examples of rebellions of province's leaders.
Poland accepted new constitution of more centralised state before division, but forces werent equal.
China was confederation before middle of 20 century. Even 1895 war against Japan was war of several states. Some Chinese states announced they WERENT at war with Japan. In 20 century China was fully surronded by enemies, and had centralised by commies after LONG SERIES OF WARS against FOREIGN agressors.

Ron Paul