Why has no empire ever lasted a 1000 years?

Prove me wrong fukboi, rather then just sputtering "A-A-ARE YOU SERIOUS?" like some mouth-breathing retard.

They select of their own. Think of the Italians and Quraysh tribe. If its not that its due to some other legal situation. For instance the big deal right now is fracking. Rumor is fracking started by a farmer in a place where everything below ground belongs to the peoples. However the loophole in the law was, unless, it is extracted via nature itself and is exposed above ground. So he deviced a natural way to extract petrol because the law never stated what constitutes 'natural.' So wise guys end up being smart asses and people dont take it the right way and then all the sudden civil battles ensue. In the end its also due to how people make their wealth and the inequality in distribution.

You claimed there was a direct succession line from augustus to the final byzantine emperor. That claim is so retarded that there arent even tinfoils trying to prove it. Its like claiming Charlemagne descended from Jesusof Nazerath. You cant just pull something out of your ass and then beleive it until somebody writes a research paper proving you wrong.

Maybe you should google the history of Rome to meet me halfway.

>You're wrong but I'm not going to make the effort to elaborate because ur dum

Also the word I used was continuous, thank you.

>Why has no empire ever lasted a 1000 years?
> I should also mention the [spoiler]Holy Roman Empire's[/spoiler] lifespan was around 1000 years
>empire
think again

Because every society inevitably declines, no matter how great it is.

Empires are like a can of food that's gone to botulism. On the label it says "Greatness," but on the inside it tastes like suicide.

You're both retarded because you're both trying to define something totally arbitrary. You could say that Rome fell in 476 or 1453 or you could say it fell during the reign of Heraclius, who fundamentally changed the character of the Byzantine Empire from classical Greco- Roman to medieval Greek, or you could say that it ends with the death of Theodosius the Great and the permanent fragmenting of the empire, or when he makes Christianity the state religion, or when the disastrous reign of Commodus necessitates a military takeover of the government. Heck, you could even say that classical Greco-Roman culture truly dies with the Caesars.

Change is constant. People in its golden age couldn't agree on what "Rome" stood for, and people in the later ages fought over who is and isn't the "true successor" to Rome. A more interesting question is why even the most stable regimes can't seem to live for longer than 250 - 300 years, and why for the Romans and/or Byzantines it was rarely longer than a few generations before compounding crises precipitate a regime change.

Quite simply eptigemetic factors play into the cycle of history.

Weak man make hard times, which produces strong men, who produce good times, which creates weak men. A little simplistic, but a simple truism can do wonders.

youtu.be/b4-Od8cq5Gk

This 3 part series is a good introduction.

The Roman Empire lasted from Augustus down to the 15th century which is hell of a lot longer than 1000 years.

The only interregnum in that entire period was in the 13th century after the Latins conquered Constantinople. Apart from that it was the same state that existed from Antiquity with a very different form. Odovacer even handed back the Western imperial office to the emperor in the East so when people call it the Eastern Roman Empire they're usually wrong. Plus the Empire was never formally split anyway, legally the Roman Empire was still one creature during that entire time.

So basically you want to know if an empire has ever remained exactly the same for 1000 years? No, obviously.

All old times where pretty shit. Being lower class in Rome was never a cakewalk.

>Both empires had massive cultural rapes and sacks
>This ends empires.

Most of them are barely past 200 years of age and some have collapsed already. While a lot of monarchies were -well- monarchies, there are plenty of failed republics.

Existing was never a cake walk you commie fuck

You entirely misunderstood the point of the video series.

Spengler was right.

>You entirely misunderstood the point of the video series.
>implying anyone is going to watch that shit
lel

>Expect an introduction to the subject
>First thing said is a moral statement

The government grows too big and ultimately cannot finance itself anymore

people don't make thing to work. people make things to work for now and once "for now" is over it's just chance.

this has to do with things like people not living that long and predicting the future being difficult.

>eternal /leftypol/ niggers incapable of watching a few short 10 minute clips despite being welfare leachs

>
>
>

Childism

Chinese empire survived 2000 years, dynasties may have changed overnight but the culture/law/people only changed naturally.

Does the west's relatively low corruption mean we may last longer than the empires of the past? (Except for the us, god knows they need to get their money out of their politics pronto)

>low corruption
The West is nothing but corruption.

t.triggered HREboo

well that's just ridiculous my man

>Except for the us
the US has a perfect geographical place, they aren't going away until WW3 at the very least

youtube.com/watch?v=kajCBOv7M6o
XXXIX
Summary
As numerous points of interest have arisen in the course of this essay, I close with a brief
summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
(a) We do not learn from history because
our studies are brief and prejudiced.
(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years emerges as the average length of national
greatness.
(c) This average has not varied for 3,000
years. Does it represent ten generations?
(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.
(e) Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
(g) The life histories of great states are
amazingly similar, and are due to internal
factors.
(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are
largely the result of external causes.
(i) History should be taught as the history
of the human race, though of course with
emphasis on the history of the student’s own
country.
people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Go away, reactionary.

No. The reason it wasn't Rome, was because it didn't contain Rome at all.

The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.

Ethiopia lasted 704 years, ofc there were invasions and habbenings

youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM

Yea even if something were to cause the "downfall" of the US, it would just split into a few different factions of people all vying for plwer claiming to be the legimate succesor to the united states. It would be like rennasaince europe where everyone thought that their country was the legitamite Roman empire and killed eachother for yeara because of it.

Because our world is just a macroscopic perception of quantum physics. If all the smallest building blocks are toppled by entropy, so will the building

Hmm, I wonder what factions would emerge if that happened today.

this is good

The NCR, the legion, the guardians of the apocallypse and the brotherhood of steel.

>low corruption

what am I reading

The south, a mexi-cali southwest nation, new england, and the mid west

...

Truth, but that's just a tautalogy. The trouble is explaining entropy in terms of ideology and politics and tribal identification

We can objectively state that the Roman empire in some form lasted in tell 1453. Throughout its lifetime tie it faced everything from civil wars to cultural revolutions but it was always there.

>What is the Roman Empire

go visit eastern europe or central america
you really take what you have for granted

The French Empire lasted from Charlemagne (800) to Napoleon (1815)

Wealth is a good way to obscure corruption bro. The West is in the middle of a nose dive and nobody notices because we still have food and nice cars. Give it a couple years

explain what you mean by corruption

Other than succession, I don't think the Chinese empire has changed much especially from the Han to Ming dynasties.

The political machinery willfully misleading the public and pursuing their own ends in private. Using the public as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself

it's a simple paradox: "hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men and weak men create hard times"

once you reach the peak of the mountain, equilibrium will be precarious and you'll eventually fall since no one can stand on a pointy place for too long

while this is a generalization, it's true that empires tend to fall. I puzzled over this, and came up with the following factors to explain imperial instability:

1. too much graft/corruption at the top.
a lazy, self-serving noble class consuming tons of luxuries becomes a burden on everyone else and stirs up resentment.

2. too much emphasis on raubwirtschaft/exploitation, not enough on productive commerce and industry.
looting and enslaving only gets you so far. you won't be able to expand indefinitely, so you need to shift to more sustainable economics.

3. protracted and futile wars.
imperial regimes tend to get embroiled in these, and it ends up wasting too much blood and treasure while not delivering nearly enough practical gains to offset the costs.

4. disorderly succession of power.
every time the ruler dies, the potential heirs wage fratricidal battles against each other to decide who gets the throne. this is very wasteful and destabilizing.

5. lack of social mobility/rigid classes.
with large numbers of subjects, a few privileged elites, and the lack of a strong middle class, the stage is set for rebellions to boil over.

there's probably more, but this is what I've come up with.

Okay.

Except that the political machinery has to hide the fact theyre doing that or even the drones they are trying control will fuck them over.

AND

The countries other people are calling corrupt have that, without the requirement that the corrupt put anything but token effort into hiding their corruption, and that corruption extends to every single level of society, to the point where you can expect to be forced to bribe pretty much anyone with an inkling of power (be they government worker, bereaucrat, law enforcement, local politician, etc.)

Or to put it another way, the West is not nothing but corruption. Its got corruption, because of course it fucking does. But its still a rosy walk in the park compared to countries where corruption is a more serious issue.

Declaring the west as nothing but corrupt is the stupidest thing you can do. That way lies apathy and a passive populace is what the corrupt want most.

the Egyptian Empire

>relatively low corruption

this tee bee aytch

Too many people have gotten lazy.

as an addendum for #5, there's a difference between social mobility and debasement of institutions. it's important that meritocracy remains in effect.

what lies have Microsoft put into her head user?

Yeah, except, historically speaking, it's exactly the opposite. Strong leaders have always caused hard and traumatic times. Life is usually easiest under the least ambitious and most cooperative leaders.

the south indian chola dynasty ruled for about 1.5K yr until collapsed and subsumed by a rival south indian micro-empire